This past February, NV-03 constituents asked Rep. Joe Heck (R-Henderson) about legislation to raise the minimum wage. They shared their personal experiences, and they presented the facts. Raising the minimum wage can raise nearly 5 million Americans out of poverty while boosting economic growth.
Rep. Heck didn't take kindly to either their stories or their facts.
">
And neither have Senate Republicans (Dean Heller included), as they just filibustered the Senate minimum wage bill.
"Min wage vote fails 54-42. Corker lone R voting aye, Reid votes nay for procedural reasons. AR & MS sens absent"
FYI, Senator Reid had to switch his vote from "Aye" to "Nay" so he can bring it back for another vote. In fact, he tweeted this following the cloture vote.
"Republicans just turned their backs on millions of hardworking Americans who deserve a fair shot. This debate is not over."
A majority of US Senators wanted to #RaiseTheWage. So do most Americans. And even some prominent conservatives have advocated #RaiseTheWage, as it would lessen the need for the public sector to subsidize the private sector's low wages.
So why did Senate Republicans block a #RaiseTheWage vote? Why wouldn't they simply allow a final vote on the bill, especially when a number of their party's "leaders" have claimed interest in "solving our poverty crisis". How can we "solve the poverty crisis" when we expect so many Americans to work for so little?
G-O-TEA media spinners are already claiming this was just a "political stunt" meant to "pamper teenagers". What they refuse to acknowledge is that most minimum wage jobs are not filled by "pampered teenagers". In fact, they're mostly filled by grown women. And 26% of the people who would benefit from a higher minimum wage have children.
Keep this in mind when you hear Senator Heller, Rep. Heck, and other G-O-TEA politicians try to spin away their opposition to #RaiseTheWage. They're denying millions of American men, women, and children the opportunity to work their way out of poverty. They're denying our economy the kind of consumer buying power that's necessary for sturdier & more robust economic growth. And they're denying our nation the opportunity to start solving the inequality crisis that's defined our time.
America is in dire need of a raise. Why can't we just have it already?
So it's happening. Nuclear warfare has erupted... But it's not in the Middle East. Rather, it's happening on Capitol Hill.
Remember the many fights that became slow, tortuous death matches once a filibuster was invoked and sustained? Even more of them have been occurring in the US Senate in recent days, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Patience) has finally had it.
Today, Senator Reid took to the Senate floor to announce what many progressives have been demanding for nearly 5 years.
As we've discussed before, Senator Reid has always been committed to preserving Senate tradition. That's why he had originally been so hesitant to radically alter the filibuster. And even when he was becoming increasingly frustrated by epic G-O-TEA obstruction, he didn't (yet) have enough Democratic Senators on board for major filibuster reform.
Back in July, Senator Reid brokered a deal with Senator John McCain (R-Arizona) and a few other (not extreme) Senate Republicans to allow for more executive and judicial confirmations. That was supposed to ease the epic gridlock of the upper chamber of Congress. And while it did for a few days, Senate Republican "leaders" simply whipped their caucus back into epic obstruction shortly after that fleeting, temporary breakthrough.
This is how Senator Reid and 51 other Senate Democrats finally reached their breaking point. And the numerous executive and judicial vacancies (due to the G-O-TEA filibusters) explain why. This is not how government is supposed to work. And at some point, something had to change.
And it now has. The breaking point has finally arrived. And after the long wait, Congress can finally become a bit more functional (well, at least the upper branch).
Yesterday, news broke of Senator Harry Reid (D) preparing to change filibuster rules if President Obama's executive nominations remain indefinitely blocked. The entire Senate held a private caucus last night to try to reach some sort of last minute deal. While Senator Reid rejected Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Kentucky) "offer" of some confirmations in exchange for unilateral disarmament, Senator Reid is now looking to other Reoublicans to reach a possible solution.
It remains possible the nuclear option will be avoided this time around as a group of Republicans, led by Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), are easing up on the stalled nominees. As Reid sees it, he’s calling the shots over McConnell.
“We’re fighting for the principle that executive nominees should get up-or-down votes,” the senior Democratic aide said. “If Republicans will give us that, there’s a chance we won’t go nuclear, but we will maintain the ability to go nuclear if they start filibustering nominees again.”
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) all but admitted that Richard Cordray had the votes to be confirmed to the CFPB. The remaining discussions are about confirming the two NLRB picks — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin. If they go through, Reid will have no incentive to go nuclear this time around, but people close to him say he refuses to give up his right to do what’s needed to make sure the Senate functions in the future.
“This would also be a rebuke to McConnell from his caucus,” the aide continued, “since the group [of Republicans] we’re talking with is so sick of the obstruction themselves that they’re basically willing to give us everything we’re asking for with no conditions on future action.”
In recent years, Senator Reid has tried several workarounds to try to move legislation in the Senate. While this has resulted in a few legislative victories, Senate gridlock has nonetheless hit an all time high. And Senator Reid seems to be ready to start changing this.
As of now, the votes are still on. The first test vote will happen around 11 ET this morning for Richard Cordray to head the Consumer Financial Protection Board. If he gets more than 60 votes, which is likely, then there will be eight hours of "debate" on his nomination. Republicans could choose to give their time back and not use up the eight hours, but that's highly unlikely. Negotiations on the remaining nominees will continue. The next two up are the key to the current impasse, the National Labor Relations Board nominees.
Republicans have essentially relented on all of the nominees except the two NLRB picks, Sharon Block and Richard Griffin. They want substitute choices for those nominees, reportedly any two new nominees of President Obama's choice. What that gives the Republicans is the continued dysfunctional NLRB. The deadline for confirmation on these appointments is August 27. Two new candidates would have to be vetted, passed through committee and brought to the floor in record time, all before the Senate goes into its August recess beginning August 5. That's essentially impossible.
Now, it's just a matter of whether Senate Republicans are finally willing to let President Obama govern. Will they do it? Or will they force Senator Reid to finally "go nuclear" to get something done?
It may ultimately come down to the National Labor Relations Board, the federal agency that oversees labor practices. Senate Republicans have been indefinitely blocking President Obama's choices for NLRB. And so far, Senator Reid continues to insist their confirmations are the final keys to diffusing this filibuster showdown. So are Senate Republicans willing to deal?
8:15 AM UPDATE:
And a deal has been reached. TPM has more details.
In short, Republicans would confirm nominees to all seven positions, a big concession for the GOP. But in a concession for Democrats, they would replace two recess-appointed nominees to the National Labor Relations Board — Sharon Block and Richard Griffin — with new nominees under the following condition: Republicans pledge to confirm any two replacements by President Obama to the board by Aug. 27.
The deal, outlined by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s (D-NV) office, also ensures that Reid retains his right to revert to the nuclear option in the future to change filibuster rules by a simple majority vote.
So President Obama will have to pick two new NLRB nominees. Then, all the vacancies will be confirmed and filled. So I guess this means crisis averted.
Of course, this also means major reform is also averted. But at least this time, Senator Reid has something to show for it.
Every so often, we're reminded of the epic dysfunction of the 113th Congress. If it's not another outburst of insani-TEA in the House, it's the struggle to accomplish anything in the Senate. That's largely thanks to the unprecedented abuse of the filibuster by the G-O-TEA clan there.
Until very recently, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) was very hesitant to radically alter Senate rules. But now that he's having to admit the Senate is broken, he may finally be ready to push for new rules.
“This is a moment in history where circumstances dictate the need for change,” Mr. Reid, the majority leader, said in a speech at the liberal Center for American Progress. He suggested that there was only one way for Republicans to avoid the rules change: give Democrats a straight up-or-down vote on all seven of President Obama’s nominations that are in question and stop filibustering executive nominations going forward.“
I love the Senate, but right now the Senate is broken and needs to be fixed,” he said.
Senator Reid is giving the entire body one last chance to hammer out an agreement on President Obama's executive appointments tonight. If this is not successful, then Senator Reid will push for a rule change on executive appointments tomorrow. He has already said he has 51 votes for this rule change.
Even this is not a major change. Filibusters on legislation and judicial nominations will continue. Clearly, change does not come easily to the US Senate.
Still, something must be done. As of now, there is no permanent Labor Secretary or EPA Administrator. And on top of this, many more executive branch positions are vacant. And another high profile vacancy is happening is Janet Napolitano is stepping down as Homeland Security Director.
This is just no way for the country to function. Something must change. And now, finally, Senator Reid feels ready to pursue that change. This won't instantly solve all Congress' woes, but someone must start somewhere.
Well, it happened. As expected, gun safety reform died in Congress today. Despite the best efforts of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Searchlight Strong), and despite even a handful of conservative Blue Dog Democrats and Republicans supporting a compromise amendment to Reid's bill, enough Republicans (along with a handful of super-conservative Blue Dog Democrats) stood together to sustain a filibuster. Not even that compromise amendment could get an up-or-down vote today. Steve Benen has more on today's EPIC FAIL in Congress.
Almost exactly four months after the massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary, the Senate took up a bipartisan compromise on firearm background checks -- the heart of the larger effort to reduce gun violence. It was a watered-down compromise written by two conservative senators, but it enjoyed the support of a majority of the Senate and the overwhelming support of the American public.
And yet, this afternoon, it died at the hands of a Republican filibuster anyway.
As the dust settled, a 54-member majority supported the Manchin/Toomey amendment, while 46 opposed it. Because of Republican obstructionist tactics, proponents needed a 60-vote supermajority and came up far short. (Technically, it would have been 55-45, but Majority Leader Harry Reid had to switch his vote for procedural reasons.)
A woman in the Senate gallery shouted "shame on you" at the members below, but she, like the Newtown families, Gabrielle Giffords, and 90% of the country were ignored. [...]
Think about this: everything was in place for success. This one simple idea -- close the gun-show loophole and apply background checks to online sales -- had all of the pieces lined up in its favor. The White House invested considerable energy in giving the proposal the best possible chance to prevail; the American mainstream strongly endorsed it; the memory of national tragedy still weighed heavily on everyone's minds; and the only meaningful organization lobbying against it has become a national laughingstock.
"If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to," the bipartisan compromise should have passed while barely breaking a sweat.
Is it not time, then, to look anew at whether our democracy has stopped working the way it's supposed to?
Ouch. He's so harsh... Yet so accurate.
And this takes us back to an issue that's been simmering since last fall. Since November, progressives have been clamoring for filibuster reform. Yet because Senator Reid was concerned about "rocking the boat" too much and threatening the collegial reputation of the US Senate, Senator Reid initially hesitated to push all that hard on filibuster reform. He settled on a "gentlemen's agreement" with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to allow for a few minor tweaks to the filibuster.
That was supposed to solve matters. But instead, it's only resulted in even more G-O-TEA obstructionism. Cabinet nominations have been delayed. Judicial nominations have been stalled. And yes, bills with well over 80% public support have been killed without even a proper vote.
Moments ago, several gun violence victims joined President Obama just outside The White House to denounce this EPIC FAIL.
He expressed his outrage, and so did the victims. In fact, one Newtown dad vowed to press on.
"What happened in Newtown can happen anywhere. In any instant, any dad in America could be in my shoes. No one should feel the pain. No one should feel our pain or the pain felt by the tens of thousands of people who have lost loved ones to senseless gun violence," [Mark] Barden said. "That's why we're here. Two weeks ago, twelve of us from Newtown came to meet with U.S. denators and have a conversation about how to bring common-sense solutions to the issues of gun violence. ... We met with dozens of Democrats and Republicans and shared with them pictures of our children, spouses, parents who lost their lives on December 14. Expanded background checks wouldn't have saved our loved ones but, still, we came to support a bipartisan proposal from two senators, both with 'A' ratings from the NRA, a common-sense proposal supported by 90 percent of Americans."
Barden described the background checks bill as "a proposal that will save lives without interfering with the rights of responsible, law-abiding gun owners." He thanked the politicians who supported the legislation and vowed he and other relatives of gun violence victims would continue fighting for it.
"We'll return home now disappointed but not defeated. We return home with a determination that change will happen. Maybe not today, but it will happen. It will happen soon. We've always known this would be a long road and we don't have the luxury of turning back. We will keep moving forward and build public support for common sense solutions in the areas of mental health, school safety, and gun safety," said Barden. "We take strength from the children and loved ones that we lost and we carry a great faith in the American people. ... Every day as more people are killed in this country because of gun violence our determination grows stronger."
Mark Barden lost his 7 year old son in the Newtown Massacre. And he doesn't want to see any more children die just so gun manufacturers can pad their profit margins even more. He was joined by Gabrielle Giffords, herself a surviving victim of the Tucson Massacre. And they were not alone out there.
In fact, there's a broad consensus among the American people for gun safety reform. Yet because gun industry lobbyists were able to bribe convince just enough Senators to abuse the arcane and antiquated rules of the institution, even the most modest compromises of reform were killed in Congress today. Something must change. And today is only the beginning of that change.
As we discussed earlier today, Senator Reid did what he could to advance this bill and the cause. But ultimately, he must realize that the arcane and antiquated Senate rules (i.e. the filibuster) only helped opponents in killing reform. And the Senators who hid behind those very arcane and antiquated Senate rules (i.e. the filibuster) should be ashamed of themselves for misusing Senate rules to please their gun lobby sugar daddies benefactors while ignoring the many lives lost to senseless gun violence.
Something must change. And today is only the beginning of that change. We can't forget what happened today, but what happened today doesn't have to last forever.
Apparently, Carson City isn't holding a monopoly on legislative action this week. Just minutes ago, something fairly amazing happened in Washington, DC. For the first time in nearly two decades, the US Senate voted to proceed debate on gun safety reform legislation.
With families of victims of the Newtown, Conn., massacre watching silently from the chamber, the Senate thwarted a threatened filibuster with a vote of 68 to 31 and will proceed next week to debate a package of legislation that would expand background checks for gun buyers and increase the penalties for criminal sales, in addition to a variety of other amendments. Those include the renewal of the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004.
Twenty-nine Republicans voted against the measure, as did two Democrats.
"Americans across this great country are looking to us for solutions and for action," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy, Democrat of Vermont and chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, "not for filibustering or sloganeering." [...]
The vote, while a short-term victory for gun-control advocates, in no way presages passage of new gun laws. The impending bill will again need 60 votes to end the debate after consideration of contentious amendments offered by both supporters and opponents of new laws.
This has been a long time coming, but we're finally here. And by the way, Senator Dean Heller (R) ultimately voted to end the filibuster on the motion to proceed with official debate. So he essentially voted with the majority to allow for formal debate to Senator Harry Reid's (D) gun safety bill, and to allow for potentially many votes on many amendments to it.
Remember, this is far from over. And although it doesn't feel as such, this is officially only just the beginning of the US Senate's official consideration of Senator Reid's gun safety bill. We're certainly still a far distance from a final cloture vote on a final bill.
So what will Senator Heller ultimately vote for? We don't know yet.
And what will Senator Reid allow to be added to his bill? We don't know completely just yet (though we know he is open to at least some amendments).
So what will finally happen here? You tell me. Otherwise, we must wait & see.
Wasn't this supposed to be solved already? Back in January, US Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D) secured a "gentlemen's agreement" with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) to make some minor tweaks to the Senate's filibuster policy. Supposedly, it was about to improve the Senate's ability to pass legislation.
Yet since then, we've only seen more filibusters and even more Congressional gridlock. And with gun safety legislation, along with comprehensive immigration reform, judicial nominations, and more federal budget debate, coming very soon, even more filibusters are being threatened. Oh, yikes.
So now, Senator Reid is threatening to blow up the January "gentlemen's agreement". After all, is this kind of behavior really "gentleman like"?
“All within the sound of my voice — including my Democratic senators and the Republican senators who I serve with — should understand that we as a body have the power on any given day to change the rules with a simple majority,” Reid told Nevada Public Radio in a little-noticed interview Friday. “And I will do that if necessary.”
Reid said he had recently spoken with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and President Obama to review their options, and then issued his ultimatum to Republicans: stop your relentless filibusters or the Democratic majority will strip away your power to do so.
“I’m a very patient man,” he said. “We made changes but the time will tell whether they’re big enough. I’m going to wait and build a case. If the Republicans in the Senate don’t start approving some judges, and don’t start helping get some of these nominations done, then we’re going to have to take more action.”
The remarks — which come ahead of a confirmation hearing for Obama’s latest nominee to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, Sri Srinivasan — represent Reid’s most pointed threat to revisit filibuster reform after the modest rules change enacted in January that preserved the 60-vote threshold. Contrary to a popular misconception, Senate leadership has the power to change the rules in the middle of a congressional session with a bare majority of votes.
On Friday, Senator Reid called into KNPR's "State of Nevada" and made his case. He especially seemed exasperated over recent economic troubles. So he finally declared his interest in real filibuster reform.
So will it finally happen? Steve Benen and Greg Sargent expressed doubt earlier this morning.
As we talked about a few weeks ago, what have we seen from the Senate since the deal? The first-ever filibuster of a cabinet nominee, a filibuster of a CIA nominee, and multiple threats of a filibuster against the Labor Secretary nominee. Republicans have filibustered judicial nominees they don't like and judicial nominees they do like. GOP senators have promised to use filibusters to stop the Obama administration from enforcing the law as it relates to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and to stop the president's nominee to lead the ATF and the EPA. All of this is represents a level of abuse without precedent.
And so, as he's done before, Reid is suggesting he's open to more ambitious reforms, and on Friday, was a little more explicit on this point than he's been since January. [...]
I have no idea what Reid has in mind. His use of the phrase "build a case," struck me as interesting -- perhaps the Majority Leader is creating a lengthy indictment, and is racking up examples for later use -- but I can't say with confidence that it will lead to anything specific.
But Greg's absolutely right about the importance of follow-through -- if Reid's threats amount to warnings, urging Republicans to reconsider their abusive tactics before they force Democrats' hands, then the Majority Leader's recent rhetoric makes sense. But if he's not prepared to give the "nuclear option" a serious look, Reid really needs to stop suggesting it's on the table.
Personally, I think it's more complicated than what Greg Sargent thinks. As we've discussed before, Senator Reid is very much an institutionalist. He believes in the institution of the US Senate. And he doesn't want to do anything to undermine the reputation and the collegiality of the Senate.
It's been taking Senator Reid some time to realize that the collegiality is long gone, especially now that the "tea party" has strengthened its grip of the Republican Party. He's had to learn the long and hard way, but I suspect he has indeed been learning this lesson. Senator Reid perhaps hoped for one more chance to fix the gridlock "the easy way" in January, but that's clearly not working. So maybe he's finally ready for real change.
Whatever the case, the nation is ready for real change. Even though the American people long ago reached broad consensus on matters like infrastructure investment, social safety net preservation, immigration reform, and even gun safety reform, hardly anything can move in the US Senate because of the filibuster. It may finally be time for a change. Is Harry Reid finally ready to make it?
Last month, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) secured a "Gentlemen's Agreement" with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) on filibuster reform. Basically, they agreed to a few minor changes and no real reform. And it was supposed to settle the matter of running the US Senate.
But now, the issue is being reopened. Now that Senate Republicans have at least temporarily succeeded in sustaining a filibuster of one of their own former colleagues, Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), as Defense Secretary, many progressives are demanding that Reid reexamine filibuster reform.
Look, we should have seen this all coming. Indeed, Jonathan Bernstein did see it coming, noting recently that GOP conduct throughout Obama’s first term clearly suggested the likelihood that Dems would need 60 votes to get Hagel confirmed. And here we are.
[... I]t’s hard to imagine anything happening that makes as eloquent a case for Reid and Democrats revisiting filibuster reform than this affair will have done. Remember, the watered down filibuster reform deal Reid agreed to was at least partly premised on the idea that both sides were at least somewhat committed to ending some of the abuses that rendered the Senate dysfunctional during Obama’s first term. We now see that Republicans are making a mockery of that arrangement. This goes well beyond Hagel; as always, it goes to the question of whether we are going to have a functional Senate.
Memo to Harry Reid: Time to revive the threat of filibuster reform. Make it absolutely clear that this won’t be tolerated.
So now, America has no Defense Secretary. President Obama now has no one to represent our country when NATO meets in Brussels later this month to plan withdrawal of NATO members' troops from Afghanistan. And we have no one in charge of The Pentagon because the G-O-TEA is (mis)using US Senate rules to grind Congress to a halt.
But now, it's more than that. America is being embarrassed on the world stage. And the Commander-in-Chief is lacking a Defense Secretary. And this is all because of silly political games on Capitol Hill.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), a leading champion of filibuster reform, issued a statement Thursday lamenting Republican efforts to perform an unprecedented filibuster against a cabinet-level nominee, Chuck Hagel.
“Merely weeks after the Senate came together in a good-faith effort to fix the Senate’s problems, Senate Republicans are now engaging in the first-ever filibuster of a Secretary of Defense nominee," said Merkley said in a statement. "It is deeply disappointing that even when President Obama nominates a former conservative colleague of the GOP caucus, the minority is abusing the rules and the spirit of ‘advise and consent.’ If our step we took last month is to be successful, extraordinary stunts like today’s filibuster can’t happen.”
Right now, Republicans are on a "fishing expedition" in hopes of catching an "OBAMA SCANDAL!!!" No really, they're still fighting Mitt Romney's outrageous and despicable battles. And because of this, America has no Defense Secretary.
This is something Harry Reid has to think about now. Can Mitch McConnell and his G-O-TEA Caucus be trusted any further to honor that "Gentlemen's Agreement"? Or is this perhaps the most glaring reminder of the failure of the contemporary filibuster?
I've said this before, and I'll say this again. Harry Reid is a big believer in the institution that is the United States Senate. And he's hesitant to allow dramatic changes to the way the Senate works.
But in a way, the Senate has already been dramatically changed. This is the first time that the President's Nominee for Defense Secretary has been filibustered. Even the most basic functions of government often can't get a vote on the Senate floor, let alone major pieces of the President's agenda. Is it finally time for a change?
Yesterday, we talked about possible changes to the filibuster in the US Senate. Today, it looks very dead. Why? Harry Reid cut a deal with Mitch McConnell.
Here's how Senator Reid explained his latest move.
A second explanation for Reid’s early enthusiasm for reform might be that Reid needed to convince McConnell to strike a deal and that the only way to do that was to scare him a bit. “Whenever you change the rules here,” Reid said, “you have to show the other side you can change them with 51 votes.” It’s the fear of the partisan reforms, in other words, that leads to bipartisan reforms.
Reid still wants to keep Republicans a little scared. He recalled that earlier in the 112th session of Congress, Senate Republicans began filing motions to suspend the rules after their filibusters were broken. “They couldn’t win these votes,” Reid said. ”It just ate up time. I put up with it for awhile and then said no more. I went to the floor, and I said that’s dilatory. The chair said no, it isn’t. I overruled the chair, and now you can’t do that because I set a precedent. I’m capable of doing more of that.”
I asked Reid whether he really thought the filibuster could survive in a Senate where, in truth, the majority leader, alongside 49 other senators and the vice president, could change any rule they wanted.
“The only way we’ll get rid of the filibuster is if it continues to be abused,” he said. “Hopefully, what we’ll do here will stop some of the abuse, but what will happenif the minority continues to abuse the rules is we won’t get rid of the filibuster, but we’ll go to something like what [Sen. Tom] Harkin has pushed, where one vote is at 57, and then another vote is at 55.”
He's always been a strong believer in Senate process, despite the whining & complaining of certain media pundits. Senate process has always been about comity, and about reaching consensus, rather than muscling together whatever majority is necessary to pass a bill (as the House typically works). Yet while Harry Reid has been able to maneuver his way to quite a few legislative victories, there's still far more to do (including legislation that's been killed by Senate filibusters in the past). And some progressives are notably irritated by Reid's reluctance to truly shake up the Senate.
“Reid said he wants to make it easier to move on bills,” the [pro-reform Senate Democratic] aide told TPM. “This doesn’t do that. He still has to negotiate with McConnell to get on a bill. This is a negligible difference to how the Senate operates today. I don’t see how they can make that argument.”
Outside proponents of reform lamented the Reid-McConnell deal.
“Unfortunately, the incremental ‘reforms” in the agreement do not go nearly far enough to deliver meaningful change,” said Fix The Senate Now, a coalition of groups pushing filibuster reform. The coalition said Democrats have “missed an opportunity to restore accountability and deliberation to the Senate, while not raising the costs of obstruction.”
So what's been agreed to? Here's the gist of it.
The new rules would permit a Senate majority to bypass the filibuster on a motion to proceed to debate with the condition that either a group of senators on each side of the aisle agrees, or the minority is guaranteed the chance to offer amendments.
The new rules limit debate time for sub-cabinet and district court nominations and reduces the number of required hours between cloture and final confirmation from 30 to two. It also lowers the number of cloture motions required to go to conference with the House.
Believe it or not, this is a big deal. Senate rules haven't been changed significantly since 1917. And the last time the filibuster was even tweaked was in 1964, when the cloture threshold was lowered from 67 votes to 60 in order to ease the way for passage of the Civil Rights Act.
Steve Benen is another progressive who's frustrated with the filibuster as is, but he thinks this negotiated package of changes is at least a good first step towards stronger reform that can fix the Senate. It's maddening to think of all the unfilled executive branch positions, all the unfilled judge's seats, and all the stalled legislation over the years. And while Reid's deal with McConnell will curb the more extreme abuses of the filibuster, it still leaves plenty of room for more of the above to happen.
Again, Harry Reid very much believes in the institution of the United States Senate. Despite the balking of some media pundits, he's given plenty of deference to Senate tradition. That's actually why some on the left are angry today. We'll just have to see if this actually helps the Senate function... And if/when the opportunity rises for stronger reform.
We know Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-HBIC) is quite adept at counting his way to a majority. But can he also count his way to a functioning Senate? That's what many on Capitol Hill have been asking since November.
Ever since Senate rules were last changed in 1917, the filibuster has transformed from the occasionally used tool to block egregiously extreme legislation to a regularly used tactic to grind Congress to a screeching halt. Just take a look at how slowly the Senate must operate now. Is this really how Congress is supposed to function?
Take a look at this chart [featured at the above link] on the growth in the number of filibusters since the Senate changed its rules in 1917.
The chart is based on an updated table the Senate keeps, chronicling cloture votes over the last nine decades, using three metrics: (1) cloture motions filed (when the majority begins to end a filibuster); (2) votes on cloture (when the majority tries to end a filibuster); and (3) the number of times cloture was invoked (when the majority succeeds in ending a filibuster). By all three measures, obstructionism soared over the last six years as Republicans abused the rules like no other party or caucus in American history.
You'll notice a sharp drop in the number of filibusters in the most recent Congress. While that might suggest signs of progress to some, it's not -- the drop only came as a result of the GOP-led House passing far-right bills the Senate didn't care to pass. And even despite this fact, the 112th Congress saw the third most filibusters of any Congress in the 223 years the Senate has existed.
In case this isn't obvious, the Senate wasn't designed to work this way; it didn't use to work this way; and by any credible measure, it can't work this way -- which is why there's so much talk of reforms next year.
Right now, the majority needs to supply the 60 votes to break a filibuster. The minority only needs one vote on the floor. Under Reid’s backup plan, the burden would be reversed: The minority would have to supply the 41 votes required to keep a filibuster going, while the majority wouldn’t have to do much of anything. That means that if the minority only had 38 votes present in the room, the filibuster would end. It also means the minority could be forced to muster all their people to vote at times of the majority leader’s choosing: say, 3 a.m. on a Saturday. It would make filibustering a much more unpleasant experience.
In that way, it satisfies a central priority of the Merkley-Udall talking filibuster, in that it forces the minority to actually put some work into filibustering. As Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) told me in the New Yorker: "Some of these people who put in these filibusters simply object and go home for the weekend. We think we need to inconvenience them."Even Merkley is supportive. "I think switching from 60 to 41 would be very valuable," he told Slate.
But the 41-vote policy is not Reid’s preference, and presumably, it’s not McConnell’s, either. It would also mean that Senate Republicans could go nuclear in response, shutting everything down. It would also, interestingly, mean House Republicans could go nuclear. House Speaker John A. Boehner’s office released a statement saying that “Any bill that reaches a Republican-led House based on Senate Democrats' heavy-handed power play would be dead on arrival.” Reid would, all things considered, prefer to avoid that particular showdown. So his hope is that the threat of the 41-vote change leads McConnell to accept his package of more limited reforms. It’s only if McConnell walks that Reid will pick that fight.
Several Senators on both sides of the aisle are leery of doing away with the filibuster... Or even tweaking with it too much. After all, under the current system one Senator has the power to derail an entire party's legislative agenda. And today's majority may become tomorrow's minority.
Hardly anyone truly wants to institute "tyranny of the majority". But by the same token, most Americans have become so frustrated with the wreckless stonewalling of the minority. It's one of many reasons why Congress is so unpopular now.
[Senator Dick] Durbin [D-Illinois] said he’d prefer to reach a bipartisan agreement. But he said there is precedent for using the constitutional option and that although he’d hate to go go that route, “if we have to to get the Senate working again, I support it.”
Do they have the votes to do it? “Yes,” Durbin said.
Reid reiterated his ultimatum to McConnell to make a deal or watch Democrats go it alone.
“I am not going to negotiate things here,” Reid said. “Senator McConnell and I are talking. The point is this: we’re going to change how we do business around here. We can do it the easy way or the hard way, but it’s going to change.”
And it must if Reid wants to move on immigration reform, climate change, gun safety, and/or any of the other issues that President Obama mentioned in his Second Inaugural Speech. So the clock is now ticking. Will the Senate finally take a big step towards becoming fully functional again?
