filibuster reform con't

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/0..._n_659821.html
Momentum is building to reform Senate rules that allow silent filibusters and force a 60-vote requirement for virtually any action, interviews with Democratic candidates and sitting senators indicate.

Democratic candidates said that they hear regularly from voters about abuse of the parliamentary tactic, which is likely to come up as the first vote new senators face in 2011. The supermajority requirement in the Senate has become such an obstacle to reform that it infiltrates policy discussions at every step. Last week at the Netroots Nation political conference, Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) gathered environmental writers to discuss energy legislation; the first few questions were related to energy, the rest of the conversation was dominated by the filibuster.

"The use of the filibuster and the way it's led to backroom deals has created the impression in the heartland that the Senate is dysfunctional," said Jack Conway, a Democratic candidate facing Republican Rand Paul in Kentucky. "They don't understand why Washington can't address the issues people care about. People in Kentucky wanted people focused on jobs -- 14 months [of the health care debate] laid bare how broken the system was."
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a leader in the effort to reform the filibuster, said that support is strongest among new members and those running now. "They're all tuned into it," said Udall, elected in 2008, of the freshman and sophomore senators. "The core of support will by those: 2006, 2008, and whoever comes in in 2010." Merkley, Cardin and Franken have all been elected since 2006.

Merkley said that he's been canvassing his colleagues to determine how strong support is for reform. "I think we will be able to pull a couple dozen senators into the debate," he said. "Now is the time to heat up this conversation. Going into this election cycle with people running for office...it is important for people to remember that there was no supermajority requirement till 1917."
Story continues below

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), during an address to the Netroots Nation conference, expressed his support for filibuster reform, comparing the situation to baseball's decision to ban the spitball and basketball's move to implement a shot clock. Neither rule had been needed before pitchers and basketball coaches abused the process, he said.

Reid has let the filibuster opponents know he's on their side. "Senator Reid has now said that he thinks that at the beginning of the next Congress there needs to be some kind of reform," said Udall. "There's a sense that we need to do something. Exactly what it is nobody quite knows yet."

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) has been holding Rules Committee hearings to study the issue of reforming the filibuster. What was recently considered impossible is now looking inevitable.

"There is a lot of talk around the country and senators are hearing it. I think there is more interest in it in the caucus. I don't know if it is an issue we will deal with this cycle, but...I think its time is coming," said J.B. Poersch, executive director of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. "Some of it is because, around the country, several of our candidates have adopted similar platforms and you have an opportunity to elect new Senators who have that on their agenda, too."


f Vice President Joe Biden -- who has spoken out against abuse of the filibuster and has been studying ways to reform it -- were to rule on the first day of the next session that the Senate has the authority to write its own rules, Republicans would immediately move to object. Democrats would then move to table the objection, setting up the key vote. If 50 Democrats voted to table the objection, the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which would be approved by a simple majority.

The simple act of holding the vote would have a therapeutic effect on the Senate even if it fails, said Udall, as it would inspire fear that abuse of the rules could lead to their destruction.

"People would then realize on both sides that if we abuse the rules, then they might change, because you do have an option of changing them. So I think there's a very healthy effect that flows from having the ability to adopt rules by a majority vote," he said.

Republicans in the Senate have performed more filibusters during the current congressional session than any minority in Senate history.

http://www.voicesofreason.info/perma...ter_reform.php

Of course none of this will matter if the Democrats don’t hold onto the House of Representatives, which they do have a serious chance of losing. But if they can hang on, and then eliminate the filibuster, the second half of Obama’s first term could be extremely productive, even with significantly diminished majorities. No doubt, this will be the major topic of discussion in Democratic circles immediately after the midterm elections.

Without filibuster reform it is likely that the entire Congressional apparatus will grind to a halt, since the Republicans are intently on derailing everything Obama does in the run-up to the 2012 elections. They have proven demonstrably that they don’t care about the problems facing the country, and only want to regain power at any cost, no matter how much suffering they leave in their wake.

It will be very hard to get 50 Democrats to eliminate the filibuster, both because of the desire to cling to tradition, and also for fear that once the Republicans get the majority again they will wreak havoc with their new power. But with significant grassroots activism, I think their hesitation and fears can be overcome. Americans want Congress to govern and to address the problems of the day. Majority rule is simple to understand and as American as apple pie; it speaks to basic notions of fairness. With the filibuster abolished, the difference between the two parties would become even more pronounced, giving the American people an even starker choice with respect to public policy between the two major parties.

http://daily.sightline.org/daily_sco...-the-us-senate

Fortunately, support is already building. In March, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid pledged to take a hard look at rules reform in the next Congress. Other senators have been stepping up, as the Washington Post has reported: Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA) suggested trimming the number of votes required to end a filibuster; Sens. Ron Wyden (D-OR) and Chuck Grassley (R-IA) have suggested a way to stop “secret holds.” Sens. Michael Bennet (D-CO) and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) propose a way to make it tougher for any sole legislator to lock up business in the chamber. Any of these reforms would likely require Udall’s Constitutional Option—that is, rules reform by majority vote—to win passage. The Senate Rules Committee held hearings in April on rules reform and in May on filibuster reform. The May hearings included testimony (video) from former Vice President Walter Mondale on how he employed the Constitutional Option to force rule changes in 1975.

The American public is ahead of the Senate: it wants the filibuster gone immediately. But rallying the Senate to use the Constitutional Option will require mobilizing enough of that public that Senators feel the courage to throw off tradition and embrace majority rule.

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) has called for several specific reforms of the filibuster. He has proposed ending the practice of placing anonymous holds; eliminating the ability to filibuster a motion to proceed to a bill; and requiring lawmakers who support a filibuster to show up on the Senate floor.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), one of the chamber’s most senior members, has also offered a reform plan.

Under Harkin’s proposal, the first vote to end a filibuster would require 60 votes. If it failed, a second vote could be scheduled two days later that would require only 57 votes to end debate. After another two days elapsed, a third vote to cut off debate would require 54 votes. After two more days, a fourth vote could be held to cut off debate with 51 votes.