From Mitch McConnell in today’s Senate Rules Committee hearing on changing the filibuster rule:
“I submit that the effort to change the rules is not about democracy. It is not about doing what a majority of the American people want. It is about power,” McConnell said.
“It is about a political party — or a faction of a political party — that is frustrated that it cannot do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, precisely the way it wants to do it.”
“This is not about reform,” McConnell said. “It’s about a political party that cannot do what it wants, whatever it wants, in the way it wants to do it.”
The Republicans have already overplayed their hand. If Robert Byrd is willing to change the rules, there is a very good chance that they will be changed.
Senate President Pro Tem Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), also a senior member of the Rules Committee, submitted a statement for Thursday’s hearing that fell somewhere in the middle between Schumer and McConnell, saying that reform could become reality. He also noted that the Senate’s filibuster rules have been changed multiple times, such as in 1975 when the threshhold for a successful cloture vote was lowered from 67 to 60 votes.
“I have long revered the rules and precedents of this body, but I have also championed reforms when I thought them necessary,” Byrd said. “We should remain open to changes in the Senate rules, but not to the detriment of the institution’s character or purpose.”
It’s probably too late for the Republicans to save the old filibuster, but if they want to try they better dramatically reduce its use before January when the next Congress convenes and the rules can be changed by a simple majority vote (instead of a 67-vote supermajority as things stand now).
Can anyone in the GOP play poker? Because these bastards don’t lie very well. The only people that treat them as serious are the teabaggers and the TradMed(who are on the take). I guess McConnell is counting on most people to forget about 2005. Or the next time they are in control of the Senate.
Best to get rid of it. By the time the thugs get back in power they will be civilized. If they aren’t it wouldn’t make any difference. We saw how that worked with the Bush administrations. Laws! Who needs law? We make it up as we go along. No. Best to get rid of it and make hay while the sun shines, which won’t be for long in any event.
He’s right, of course: a majority of the American people are frustrated that the representatives they elected cannot do what they were elected to do. So yeah, it’s about power. Power as granted under a democratic system. B-b-but if we allowed such outrages to happen, why, we would have been deprived of the blessings of the Bush administration. Then we would have been sorry.
BTW, much as I admire Byrd for his principles, even when they’re wrong, his reverence supply seems wasted on the rules and precedents of the rotting old Senate.
Wow, that’s great news. I had no idea they were this far along in the filibuster reform process.
I too find myself conflicted by Byrd’s stance. On the one hand, as you note DaveW, his love for the Senate at times seems naive and even actively harmful to the institution. On the other hand, I think it’s valuable to have someone present who remembers what the Senate was like as a well-functioning body, if only to provide the hope that it can be that way again.
As a short-term solution, I’m glad to see progress on this. As a long-term change, I’m worried about the next time Republicans are in the majority (although I realize that Democrats didn’t use the filibuster effectively when it was their trump card).
If the rules can be changed with a simple majority vote when the next Congress convenes in January, why hold hearings now? No one expects this to pass with 67 votes, do they? And isn’t it just fodder for Republican turnout in 2010?
blue moon, here’s a “off-the-top-of-my-head” response to your questions:
As for your worries about the next time Republicans are in the majority, I share them, but that’s politics in a democracy. Sometimes your side wins; sometimes your side loses. You live with the results and work for a better outcome next time.
It’s worth repeating a point Josh Marshall (among many others) has made about George W. Bush’s failed attempt to privatize Social Security. Despite solid Republican majorities (and plenty of Blue Dog Democrats), Bush wasn’t able to get a bill drafted—let alone passed through a committee, or onto the floor of one house of Congress—because it was so unpopular and the opposition was so well organized. Having a majority doesn’t mean being able to do whatever you want.
As we’ve seen with health care reform, the bigger threat to our democratic system is not the tyranny of a duly elected majority in Congress. It’s the obstruction of the people’s expressed will by the multiple checkpoints in our federal government—particularly in the Senate.
The Constitution contains enough checkpoints itself. The recent abuse of the filibuster is unprecedented, historically speaking, and is more to be feared than a future Republican majority.
I think there’s merit in assuring every side time to join the debate. That’s not really the issue, though. What the GOP wants, for now, is an automatic minority veto. You can be sure they will put a stop to that whenever they take power again, whatever the Dems do now.
Personally I think there are two better alternatives than a straight 51-votes threshold for passage. One is Harkin’s proposal for a gradual lowering of the vote requirement, finally to 51, over several days.
The other would be to change the requirement from 60 votes for passage to 40 votes to prevent cloture, which would put the burden on the minority instead of the majority. I think either idea would do what’s needed. I’m sure there are lots of equally good variations out there, too.
That’s a nifty change straight from the school of behavioral economics- make them “opt-in” to a filibuster with 41 votes rather than “opt-out” through 60 votes. While we’re talking about small things that could make a big difference, can I add a couple others:
The excuse for the hold is to give the senator more time, but it’s of course used to try and kill whatever is up for debate. At the very least, there’s absolutely no justifying a secret hold on anything. Secrecy doesn’t make it easier to “study” the law or nomination. And it shouldn’t take more than a day or two.
DaveW, I like your second proposal because—if I read it correctly—it requires the minority to keep 41 Senators on the Senate floor around the clock in order to sustain a filibuster. Currently, the pressure is on the majority to keep its 60 Senators available nonstop.
My concern about Harkin’s proposal is the several days provision. Republicans have sought both to obstruct and to delay Democratic action on bills and on nominees. We’ll see the costs of delay when bills that have majority support fail to pass this fall because there’s simply not enough time, under the rules, to bring them to a vote.
How about a variation on Harkin’s proposal:
This gives the minority time to address its major concerns, but also provides incentives for minority Senators to cut a deal before the bill moves forward without them.
In the meantime, the Senate can deal with other business. If the minority wants to filibuster multiple items of business, the majority can file for cloture and start the clock ticking on multiple items of business.
Limiting filibusters to one per bill is essential. I don’t know if Harkin’s proposal addresses that or not. I like your timetable.
Still prefer the idea of putting the burden to sustain the filibuster with 41 votes. It gives the minority a chance to voice its concerns, but also adds a cost — one which is borne solely by the majority now.
Maybe the threshold should just be reduced. Not to 51, but to 55 or 53. I’d hate to see a future Cheney ramming crap through by two votes. OTOH, 55-45 is a substantial majority and if the voters went crazy and gave the neothugs a 10% majority, then so be it. That’s Democracy. Maybe even 53-47 if the forty seven are all from one caucus. If someone has crossed the aisle, then 55-45 required to pass. Maybe even if two have crossed the aisle, then 60-40 as it is now.
But if cloture is denied, real debate has to ensue. One party can’t just declare, “OK, you need a supermajority on everything”. Ostensibly, the vote is to end debate, so if you vote Nay, you have to debate.