At noon today, every senator and senator-elect will be on the chamber floor, where they'll be sworn in, marking the beginning of the 113th Congress. Soon after, members will, at least in theory, get to work.
But before they tackle any legislative duties, senators will have to establish some procedural guidelines for how the chamber will function, or at least try to, over the next two years -- starting, of course, with consideration of proposed changes to the Senate's abused, increasingly ridiculous filibuster rules.
There is more than one plan on the table. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.), for example, have put forward the most ambitious reforms, which include the much-discussed "talking filibuster" provision. Late last week, another option emerged when Sens. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Carl Levin (D-Mich.) unveiled a severely watered-down plan, which would make very few substantive changes.
Yesterday, Merkley told Greg Sargent that the McCain/Levin plan, which would not address what the Democrat calls the "secret silent filibuster," is simply too weak to support.
"If Levin-McCain comes to the floor in its current form, I'll vote against it," Merkley told me today. "I'll certainly encourage others to oppose it." Indeed, Merkley adds that the current package of reforms would further enable minority obstructionism -- and constitutes a gift to Republicans.
That Merkley is sounding the alarm in this fashion suggests the prospects for real filibuster reform may be very bleak.... The time for real filibuster reform is fast running out. Indeed, from the point of view of reformers, we may be about to take a step backwards. And given how fleeting the political will is for this kind of reform to begin with, that bodes terribly for the prospects of real long term change.
So, what's going to happen? It'll be up to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to set the course of action, and right now, even he doesn't seem to know what will happen next.
In fact, it appears Reid may want to explore a reform avenue of his own, and will delay a formal decision until he has a chance to consider a different plan.
With a new Congress being sworn in Thursday, Reid had threatened to invoke what critics call the "nuclear option": Changing filibuster rules by 51 votes on the first day of a new session, circumventing the usual requirement in which at least 67 senators are needed to change Senate rules.
Instead, he'll employ a circuitous procedure to technically keep the Senate in its first legislative day by sending the chamber into recess -- rather than adjourning. That move would keep the Senate in session, preserving his option of pushing forward with the so-called nuclear option at a later date.
That will buy Reid time for further negotiations with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell to see if they can reach a bipartisan agreement, aides said Wednesday. It could delay the fight until the week of Jan. 22.
We don't yet know what Reid intends to do -- though he reportedly disapproves of both reform plans -- but so long as the process continues, the prospect for some kind of changes to the dysfunctional chamber remains alive.
Leave a Comment:
Sadly, "comity" requires a continuation of the status quo.
And, remember the first- indeed the only- rule of politics is "Look out for Number One."
The question for Harry Reid right now is just how much comity was extended to him by McConnell and his gang over the past four years?
When Harry comes up with the answer, I hope he brings the Merkley/Udall rules change to the floor, and not the one filled with fake comity! -Kevo
Exactly .
Ahh ... the comedy of comity. Except it's not funny to those of us who daily watch the Republican party try to push America further down the craphole. When considering his options, Harry Reid needs to remember just one event -- the day that Mitch McConnell filibustered his own bill!
How much more do you need to know?
If Dems don't change the rules, they are largely to blame for the degree of obstruction. They need to put an end to "tyranny of the small states".
Amended to read:"the tyranny of the small Southern states" ...
Harry needs to remember two things: 1) the filibuster abuse employed by the GOP the last four years, and 2) the fact that the American electorate is begging for Congress to actually do their job, which begins with serious filibuster reform.
The Romans welcomed the death of the old Republic and the arrival of Caesar, who reformed the dysfunctional Senate and the Tribunes (their equivalent of the House). If Harry doesn't grow a pair and solve this, the result will lead to the American version of this history. It didn't work out all that well for the Romans, and won't for us.
I want to see reform, but I also understand that Senators are cautious about opening a can of worms that cannot be unopened. Filibuster reform advocates: Are you prepared to see this blow up in our faces as early as 2014?
If this group of Tea Party Republicans got control of the Senate, you don't think they'd eliminate the filibuster via nuclear option the first chance they got?
This. As soon as the Rs have power, it is bye-bye filibuster! Anyone who thinks otherwise is beyond naive.
Look: the Dems are pssys. They'll never do anything that will have the corporate media say anything negative. The Republicans want to gut medicare and social security and give more handouts to the rich and military contractors. Yet the Dems can't make the case against them! They're just too pathetic (and all we've got).
Miles Grant is absolutely correct. If Republicans gain control of the Senate you can expect real filibuster reform at the first opportunity. The problem is a lot of Democratic Senators like the cover doing nothing affords them. After all they can simply point to Mitch McConnell and mutter something about the damn filibuster instead of actually taking responsiblity for governing.
Sort of like Benjamin Disraeli introducing suffrage after twenty years of liberal governance and inaction .
Why is IdiotsandHatersBowDown permitted by this site to use such a, be it abbreviated, term "pssys" as a way of denigrating the Democrats, women, and TRMS? Unacceptable!
@MIles: Tea Partiers don't have, and never will have the Senate. I don't like either wing, but there are some fundamental differences between the lever-pullers in the Senate and the lunatic fringe in the House, one of the most important being that the McConnell cadre is not likely to be any more eager to make the first move toward tossing the fillibuster. They've already had that opportunity, and passed on it.
So I gather y'all think that tossing the fillibuster for two years--when the advantage of doing so will be greatly mitigated by not having a majority in the House--outweighs the prospect of having the last two years of Obama's presidency completely crippled?
The house doesn't have a filibuster and they would be no more likely to unilaterally disarm than the Senate. Perhaps I'm misreading your little incoherent screed, but there are not any discernible differences between House and Senate Repugnicons on this issue.
You mean they've threatened it before and settled for a deal instead.
Completely crippled? How does that work exactly and how is it different than its been so far?
What should be obvious here is that all the Dems can be guaranteed over the next two years is appointments, but that only happens with this reform.
Nice. Way to raise the bar on dialogue. And yeah, you are. I'm aware that there's no such thing as a filibuster in the House.
Actually, there are. And if you keep seeing the Republican caucuses in the House and Senate as a monolithic block, you're going to miss a lot of opportunities to exploit differences and drive wedges.
This is a wild mischaracterization of what's being proposed. The "talking bill", as an example, would require that filibusters be performed as they were throughout most of US history in which if you want to hold up a bill you must stand on the Senate floor and hold up all processes until cloture is called or the bill is withdrawn (or you run out of things to say/phonebooks to read out of and you finally choose to sit down). That's the way it worked in our US Senate until very, very recently. Proposing this rule would not be a radical change nor indeed would it screw the majority party should Democrats one day return to being the minority. It would simply require that a person actually be present and actually discuss why they are filibustering. Gasp at the horror of actually having to explain one's actions!
Other proposals have been to change the number of Senators it takes to break a filibuster from 60 to 55 or with a simply majority. This, as well, would not deny the minority the right to filibuster, it would simply change the threshold from which a filibuster has to be broken. This, again, is not historically unprecedented. It used to require more than 60 votes to break a filibuster, but progressively as the years have gone on the threshold has been lowered.
If you want to make the argument that you like where the threshold is at that's OK. But going to the hyperbolic argument by suggesting that Democrats want to eliminate the filibuster is disingenuous.
The thing that gets me is that Everyone always talks about "Mandates" and "The will of the people"
Well this is what the people WANT!!! We want a functional Government and the Senate just needs to get on with it
So Reid is off to see if he can strike a deal with McConnell. After all, that worked so well last time.
I guess I could be all in for trying to get buy-in from McConnell, if I felt he had the countries best interests at heart. As it is the current filibuster gives McConnell some significant power and there is little chance he will willingly surrender that power.
Reid has surprised me before, but I have my doubts he will this time. The big tell here is:
The Merkley/Udall plan isn't all that radical. It isn't a complete removal of the filibuster as some on the left would like. There isn't much room between Merkley/Udall and McCain to fiddle with the particulars without ending up with essentially the McCain plan. My guess is that we'll end-up with something along the lines of the McCain plan.
A talking filabuster would be better than nothing. The secret filabuster is a crock. Reid needs to git'er done today, but he'll need help from those spineless democrats known as "blue dogs".
A talking filibuster would be worse than what we have now. Dems sleeping in the hallway while Republicans go out for a drink, not caring whether there is a quorum or not. Once one Republican gets tired of talking (it's possible), they just have another cloture vote and start the process over again. Republicans don't even have to show up for cloture votes. A non-vote equals a no vote.
That is a chilling vision .
The new Senator from Massachusetts, Elizabeth Warren, has pledged to work to fix the abuse of the 60-vote cloture nonsense in the Senate and related filibuster changes. We MUST get this done. Period. As things still stand at the moment, one, single senator can hijack everything and hold-up bills for ransom.
Senator Reid: Let's not take this opportunity to water down reform to the filibuster rule which you of all people know has been abused beyond belief in the past few years. Let's return to a real democracy where the majority rules and a vote is based on the majority and not two thirds. If the Dems don't reform the filibuster without compromise that accomplishes very little, you can forget about my future support! We worked too hard to get this far.
I wonder if there is that much straight talk in one year at the exalted hypocrisy called the Senate .
Harry Reed will chicken out and the filibuster will continue uninterrupted...Lawrence ODonnel says we need not worry though, because most things happen with 100 votes...what filibuster?
I remember when the senator would stand and talk for hours and then go to a fellow senator to take over. It could finally be closed because they tired, or there was agreement to not bring up the subject, or a vote to stop the talking and vote on the subject at hand. It was not perfect, but it seems much better than one or two people stoping the entire process.
To not make some significant change to the present use of the filibuster rule is NOT and option! Nor is a watered down version of change such as McCain is proposing an option. Why would anyone listen to John McCain these days anyway....He is so out of step with anything reasonable, factual, or logical. But I digress. Harry Reid should not drag his feet on this issue! The Senate is dysfunctional thanks to how the Republicans have misused the filibuster over the past 4 years. To move Forward on behalf of the American people, this misuse and abuse of the filibuster cannot be allowed to continue.
Let's hope they can do something here.
They just need to do it, the idea that we have to play this idiot game of working with the Republiturds at this point is insanity. All they have to do is remove the ability for someone to sign a paper just to stop a bill, they need to actually WORK for that stoppage instead of just hiding and not exposing their own stupidity and obstruction of the process. Why let any politician just get away with stopping something that isn't loud and clear which party is screwing everything up?
Why does the "progressive" party have an old Mormon running it? Before deciding on filibuster reform how about voting for someone other than spineless Harry Reid to be majority leader? His failure to reform the filibuster in 2008 led to gridlock and ultimately the 2010 electoral debacle—Congress wasn't getting anything done with the Dems perceived by much of the public to be in control, so there was little enthusiasm for Dems to show up at the polls and lots of incentive for the opposition to do so, as the far more authoritarian right can be counted on to do in mid-terms. Reid's handshake deal with McConnell to play nice was a sucker's play and he fell right into it, even though it was obvious that the Senate Republicans were even then interested in nothing but obstructionism. If Reid had gotten his act together in 2008 and reformed/dumped the filibuster, the Dems would have actually had control of Congress and could have passed truly progressive legislation that might very well have changed the 2010 results. Instead we got a Republican takeover that not only stopped everything in Washington but allowed for Republican gerrymandering that'll haunt us for another decade at least.
Reid's failure in 2008 may not be generally recognized as one of the most bone-headed moves in modern political history, but in any sane world that should have been the political end of him. Instead he's still in the driver's seat, and waffling on something so obvious at this point that one has to cringe just looking at his hangdog mug. This, of course, is not to say that even wholesale discarding of the filibuster at this point will be of any great help, since the damage in the House has already been done, but at least Obama would be able to get all his appointees approved, which is no small thing when you consider the Supreme Court, not to mention dozens of other federal court appointments.
What a sad state of affairs!
If they don't reform now when they have the option, there will be no sympathy coming from me and many more when every bill they try to pass gets filibustered into the ground. I don't care how mad it makes Yertle, we need a functioning representative government.
If Reid fails to reform the filibuster and there is another repeat of the last couple years, then Reid should be dumped as majority leader. There is a breaking point with patience and we are well past that point. Dems should push for aggressive reforms. Cloture votes will not be needed if Republicans will stop being petulant. But until that time, Dems need a back up plan.
Why wait until Reid fails again? He already did, which is what got us into this mess in the first place. To quote that great philosopher, G.W. Bush: "Fool me once.... I won't get fooled again."
Reid had his chance. He blew it, and we'll live with the repercussions for years.
Hopefully VERY soon, the pundits and newscasters will stop calling the congress obstruction by the term 'far-right'-go by the tea party's true calling: non-violent anarchists. I have sat in on some of their meetings; outside of a good dose of devout protestant musings, their goal is to disrupt. They truly believe a teenie-tiny government will do!! The fact that this country has a couple hundred million people pays no heed. To those ends they have primarily spent the last 2 years renaming buildings and trying to overturn abortion legislation. They think in 3-D also; as they are doing things in DC they are also doing things at the state and local levels too. This is a whole new ball game; I have been watching since the 1980's and it is getting to be a game all Americans should take time to be aware of.
The Founding Fathers rightfully feared that the masses would vote themselves bread and circuses -- but made no provision against the REPRESENTATIVES voting themselves tenure (via gerrymandering), or choosing obstructionism over Duty to Country. They apparently held great expectations of our system of choosing representation as being self-correcting, when actually the bureacratic underpinnings are being manipulated to BLOCK that correction. Penalties for non-performance of duties should be on the agenda, while insular dynasties need to be aborted.