Matt Browner-Hamlin has a useful write-up of the cloture/filibuster procedure in the Senate and how it will impact the debate over health care reform.
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
Very useful. I think this is the takeaway that our side should be repeating ad nauseum: “there is no such thing as a Republican filibuster, because the GOP caucus only has 40 votes. As a result, the only way health care reform can be blocked is if members of the Democratic caucus join the Republicans to oppose moving forward.”
It also reminds us about the many amendments that will be offered on all sides. In a way that could be the most important period of all. I wonder if anybody will offer the Weiner or Kucinich House amendments in the Senate? They were shut out in the House. This is also where the other side will try to sneak in their poison pills, so it needs even closer watching than the committee markups or the original bill.
The writeup doesn’t mention letting the filibuster run as a possiblility. The only reason for the Dems to refuse to do so is that it would shine the spotlight on renegade Dems and make it clearer that this is not just a GOP filibuster.
I agree with Bob Herbert up to a point. People would probably be happier with Congress if they were working on creating jobs more than health care reform. But, what’s important for the 2010 elections is what Congress does next year.
is that we treat is like so:
Unemployed American + Demand = Employed American
when it’s actually more like so:
Unemployed American + Required Skillset + Labor-Intensive Industry + Demand = Employed American
There are parts to that equation that we can’t really adjust nationally (or at least not easily). I know of 3 jobs that need (for example) a guy who has 5 years programming in a certain database language. They’ll be open a month from now.
Then of course, we have the constant drumbeat of more efficiency, which is simply reducing the number of people per unit output.
The sad truth is, much of the thrust of American business is quite literally to hire fewest possible people. Zero would be ideal. If I walk into a business and tell them I can help them replace ten employees, it would be a guaranteed sale.
Fighting that dynamic is a daunting challenge.
Profit = Revenue – Cost
Pretty much anything that (legally) reduces cost or increases revenue will be pursued by business – fighting that dynamic is much akin to fighting the dynamic of Niagra Falls’ current.
RE:
“Profit = Revenue – Cost
Pretty much anything that (legally) reduces cost or increases revenue will be pursued by business – fighting that dynamic is much akin to fighting the dynamic of Niagra Falls’ current.”
And unfortunately, neither vicious greed nor vicious stupidity is illegal.
Your comment is a gross oversimplification.
There have been instances in which U.S. managers have closed U.S. plants and shipped the work abroad when, thanks to the devoted and efficient efforts of the businesses’ U.S. employees, the firm made earnings which allowed the management to undertake the costs of transferring the operation abroad. In short, the managers said, “You’ve done so well that we’re closing the plant and shipping the work overseas.” This was admitted!
I’m certainly not arguing for the integrity of management – that would be like arguing for Bill Clinton’s chastity or Dubya’s intellect – but I am saying that trying to fight the desire to reduce costs is an exercise in abstinence-only…
I think this is a bit misleading,
It seems to suggest that debate can’t be derailed (by opposing the opening of “debate,” which means, to consider pending legislation, or, later, to move to a vote by closing further debate) unless opponents first garner 41 votes in favor of derailing it. But that’s not quite how it is, is it?
A single Senator may object. And, with that single objection, it then becomes necessary for 60 votes to combine in overriding that objection, isn’t that correct? In other words, it’s extremely easy to forestall debate, or to forestall its cloture, and, thus proceed to a vote; what’s difficult on any controversial measure, is assembling the 60 votes required to overcome one single objector. Thus, the Senate rules, by design, make action without very broad consensus—i.e. greater than a 50%+1 majority—very difficult. The excuse offered for this is that this broad consensus is so very important.
Standing rules of the U.S. Senate:
http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=HowCongressWorks.RulesOfSenate
A single senator can delay a vote by two days simply by forcing a cloture vote (denying their consent for a motion).
That’s enough of a delay to stall appointments (which simply don’t get scheduled) but not enough to derail major high-priority legislation.
One reason the old filibuster is gone is that the current rules allow a senator to speak and the ‘note the absence of quorum’ which forces the clerk to count to roll….”Mr. Akaka…”
This ploy works even if there is an obvious quorum present. It allows a senator to go to the bathroom or eat a donut or whatever and then they can continue talking. So, the rules would have to change to get back to those Mr. Smith Goes to Washington days. And it takes 67 votes to change the rules.
Some questions RE:
“A single senator can delay a vote by two days simply by forcing a cloture vote (denying their consent for a motion).“
Assuming the “forcing [of] a cloture vote” results in a cloture vote, what happens, then, if the mentioned cloture vote fails? (and how many votes are needed to carry the motion? 60? 51?) A two-day delay? Something more?
And, then, how often can this be repeated–by the same or other members’ offering objections? Indefinitely?
Let me take it in steps.
Harry Reid wants to begin debate on a bill or nomination. Some member of the senate warns him that they will object. Reid has to make a decision. Does he schedule a cloture vote for two days hence, or does he just table the bill and move on to other business? Depending on his priorities and his chances of winning 60 votes for cloture, he can go either way. It chews up time to file for cloture and he’s reluctant to do it for nominations. For health care reform he will do it.
The cloture vote must get the support of 3/5’s of seated (not present, necessarily) senators. If it fails, he cannot move to debate or vote. So, where does the filibuster come in? If a bill gets cloture to open debate, the debate begins. But he must get unanimous consent to end debate. Without it, another cloture vote becomes necessary. If that second vote fails, the debate goes on until Reid pulls the bill. If he refuses to pull the bill, the debate can go on forever. However, no senator can talk on the same subject more than twice in any legislative day, which does put a theoretical upper limit on how long the minority can sustain a filibuster. Eventually, if Reid refused to adjourn (and start a new legislative day) the GOP would run out of people eligible to debate. But, with 40 members opposed to health care reform, they could go on for weeks.
A delay of several weeks seems well worth the price when the prize is a matter of such historic importance. It seems likely, doesn’t it, that if Reid refused to adjourn the filibuster would run out of steam before it ran out of members? The period the filibuster went on would be a real test for whether the pro-reform side has its act together. I should be able to shine a merciless spotlight on senators blocking the law’s chance to get a vote.
Seems like a kind of Prisoners’ Dilemma would kick in somewhere along the way, with turncoat Dems worrying that the filibuster would end and permanently mark them as fake Democrats voting for the benefit of their corporate masters instead of the American people. Now I’m almost hoping it comes to that — it could be the spark for a real sea change in our national political perceptions and loyalties.
All of which, on reconsideration, sounds to me as though for all practical intents and purposes, it is not quite realistic to claim that the filibuster as known and practiced from the days of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington are effectively over and done with.
In actual practice, the requirement of 60 votes (whether to start or end debate) for cloture means that, indeed, bills, amendments, etc. can be filibustered, (i.e. ‘talked to death’) by a minority —and that is a minority (almost any) of only 40 or fewer members.
After a cloture motion is carried, the debate goes on for another 30 hours at most, as you’ve pointed out. But the major point is that, unless there are 60 votes in favor of cloture, it doesn’t pass and it matters not how many are opposed to a measure; one single member’s objection will do to stall its debate (starting or ending). And that, it seems to me, is what a “filibuster” is all about. Right?
(In the above, normal floor practice—as applies here— is assumed rather than the special conditions which obtain under certain exceptions (budget reconciliation) which provide for limited debate without a 60-vote cloture.)
“those Mr. Smith Goes to Washington days”
Okay, I see this means that a filibuster which could go on without end unless a cloture vote prevails or those seeking a vote renounce and agree to withdraw is no longer possible under existing rules.
Sorry to put you out for the explanation.