The Hill: Harken to Reintroduce Bill to Bust Filibusters

[flpoljunkie]

Harkin to reintroduce bill to bust filibusters

By Jordan Fabian - 12/27/09

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) said Saturday that he plans to reintroduce legislation to reform the filibuster process in the Senate.

The top senator on the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee said that he will once again attempt to pass the bill he first introduced in 1995 when Democrats were the minority party.

"I'm going to reintroduce that again in January," Harkin told the Washington Post's Ezra Klein. "And people are going to say I only worry about this because I'm in the majority. But I come with clean hands! I started when I was in the minority!"

Harkin's comments come as the filibuster has come under fire from Democrats and liberal interest groups. Thay say that the requirement that the Senate need a 60 vote supermajority to approve procedural motions makes it too difficult to move significant legislation like healthcare reform. Some liberals blamed the filibuster for the removal of certain provisions favored by liberals such as the public health insurance option and the Medicare buy-in proposal.

more...

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73649-harkin-to-reintroduce-measure-to-change-filibuster

[whistler162]

1. I've said it before and I will repeat.

STUPID IDEA Senator Harkin!

[flpoljunkie]

8. More stupid than effectively requiring a 60 vote supermajority to do anything?

I don't think so.

[whistler162]

10. IF the proposal was to return the filibuster

to its original method/intent, one Senator talking until they gave out or the Senate changed whatever they wanted changed/removed, then I would support it. But, to rip the filibuster out by the roots is stupid.

[flpoljunkie]

14. It won't be ripped out by the roots. Harkin's proposal gradually lessens the vote requirement which

would seem to work to move legislation forward.

Perhaps they should make them actually 'filibuster' in all cases.

[CreekDog]

13. Okay, I agree, it's stupid, end the filibuster altogether

it makes the already undemocratic Senate representation even worse.

25 states with 15% of the population hold 50% of the seats in the Senate.

[backscatter712]

17. Harkin's bill effectively does that.

The original reason for the Senate's rules of unlimited debate (which comes with the filibuster) was to prevent a bare majority of 51 Senators from meeting in the middle of the night, and slamming a bill through with a rushed vote before opposition could show up and demand a debate.

What Harkin's bill does is change the debate rules so the first cloture vote to end debate requires 60 votes, like today. Then after a minimum of a certain number of hours of debate, the threshold goes down to 57 votes. Then after some more debate, it goes down to 54 votes, then to 51 votes.

In short, it ensures that the Senate will have plenty of time to discuss a bill in formal debate, but makes it impossible for a filibuster to completely block a bill from passage, assuming you've got a 51 vote majority for passage.

[MH1]

20. Thank you for the clarification - sounds like a GREAT idea

(assuming we really think passing everything with only a 51 vote majority is a good idea.)

[backscatter712]

23. The U.S. is the only industrialized democracy that allows for filibusters.

It was OK a few decades ago, when the filibuster was used sparingly, and most legislation cruised through with a basic majority vote, and only a
few controversial bills were blocked (like the Civil Rights Act - and you wonder why I don't like filibusters...)

Of course, now that the GOP is filibustering everything, we have an effective requirement of a supermajority for every single thing the Senate does. That's completely dysfunctional, and needs to be fixed.

So count me in the supporters for Harkin's bill.

[cascadiance]

25. The original intent of the filibuster rule was to prevent "minority" rule by less populous states..

Which has been what has been the case most of the times when the Democrats were in a minority. In these cases, their representation in the Senate arguably represented an equal and in some cases greater amount of the U.S. population, and therefore the rule was thought to help counterbalance a majority of smaller population (and mostly in these cases GOP states) states in a senate majority trying to ramrod stuff through.

When the GOP is in the minority though, and they are filibustering at the record pace they are doing now, the effect is in effect the opposite. The smaller minority of senators of smaller population states is holding a decisive majority (population and number of senators) from doing its business with this rule.

The timed scale back of this majority seems to be a good compromise to this, to allow for longer discussion on important issues, but not keeping the government hostage to a minority of congress. If the Republicans want stronger means to hold up the majority than this time element, perhaps put in a provision where they could delay it only through the traditional "read 100's of books in a row with a pee pot next to you" filibuster of old where they would have to EARN a filibuster more than the simple cloture votes do now.

Harkin's bill should have been passed months ago and perhaps have saved us the mess we are in now.

[Diamonique]

50. I'm glad you cleared this up. I love this idea!

I'll certainly be writing to my Senators about it.

[quakerboy]

45. How so?

Right now the lowest 21 population states holding approx 3.13% of the US population can basically veto any bill. Without the filibuster it would take the senators of 25 states, with a minimum of 17.62% of the population represented, to block a bill.

How does that make the senate less democratic?


Of course none of that takes into account that Oregon and Conn. are in the lower 25 population states, and Vermont and Delaware, and HI are in the lowest 20 states. But the conservatives are over represented by their stronger presence in the smaller states.

[CreekDog]

48. i think the Senate itself is undemocratic and should be abolished

i see the end of the filibuster as an interim step.

the Senate's composition is inherently undemocratic because it gives an individual in one state more power than an individual in another state. you might like it or see that it has advantages --but it's undemocratic.

in fact, California's Senate once composed basically like the US Senate (senate seats allocated to individual counties) was found unconstitutional (yes, the US Constitution) and thereafter each Senate seat within the legislature at the state level is now based on population.

"Prior to 1968, state senate districts were restricted such that one county could only hold at most one seat. This led to the situation of Los Angeles County, with 6 million residents as of 1968, receiving 600 times less representation than residents of Alpine County and Calaveras County, some of California's least populous counties. The Reynolds v. Sims decision by the United States Supreme Court compelled all states to draw up districts that were apportioned by population rather than geography. As such, boundaries were changed such that equal representation was provided." (source wikipedia)

[quakerboy]

49. Whoops. I misread

I thought you were saying "getting rid of the filibuster is stupid".

I agree with you. The senate as it stands is undemocratic, and needs to be greatly reformed at best, abolished at worst.


So, based on that lawsuit, could the state of, say, California take the thing to court to change the whole system? Or is that too out there even for consideration?

[CreekDog]

51. No that lawsuit wouldn't render the US Senate unconstitutional

because it is as proscribed by the US Constitution.

ironic that the courts realized that no other legislative body like this would be constitutional.

so this one requires amending the constitution. i think that's 2/3 congressional vote and 38 states. yikes.

[quakerboy]

52. Thats what I thought

But, parading my ignorance, I couldn't remember where exactly the senate was set up.

Amending the constitution is indeed a rather harrowing procedure. Which, unlike the filibuster for any old bill, is very much as it should be.

I suppose once again it comes down to campaign finance reform.

[harun]

54. Agree, the Senate was able to serve the people when the population

of the United States was less than 50 million. I.e. from 1790 to roughly late 1800's. We now have 300 million people in this country, the institution has not reformed to meet this reality.

In the current climate Senators hold far too much power and special interests need only gain the support of four or five Senators to kill any legislation they want. Hence nothing really changes. No meaningful Federal legislation gets through the system. They are too corrupted.

[CreekDog]

2. Someone just unrecommended this --what on earth?

I don't know about some of you. :eyes:

[whistler162]

4. Why did you decide to highjack this thread

with your whine about unrec?

By the way read my first post in the thread and then work the math!

[CreekDog]

11. i recommended your thread

and saw it undone almost immediately.

that's not hijacking.

[Better Believe It]

3. What filibusters? The phantom filibusters that are never seen on C-Span?

Because these bogus "filibusters" never take place on the Senate floor in accordance with Senator Reid's wishes.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pscot]

16. He's not pretending

He really is an idiot.

[CreekDog]

24. The rules don't require "talking" filibusters

I think your knowledge is based on "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington" and such rules don't exist in today's Senate.

[Selatius]

6. I really doubt it's going anywhere. The powerful use the filibuster to kill leftist legislation. nt

[Better Believe It]

42. What filibusters? Have you seen any on C-Span?

[Selatius]

53. You can kill a bill nowadays by simply threatening one, like Repubs do all the time. nt

[billyoc]

56. Actually, that's the purpose of the Senate in the first place.

Even the English realized that their House of Lords is ridiculous and removed it from the legislative process.

[benlurkin]

7. Careful what you ask for

Sometimes it (or the threat) is the only leverage the minority party has. And if he thinks the Democrats won't be in the minority ever again then he is an idiot.

[flpoljunkie]

9. Harkin first introduced the bill when the Dems were in the minority.

The Senate is broken.

[Selatius]

12. The Senate would be fine. What's broken is the campaign finance system.

Setting up a system to run on private cash generally means the wealthy interests have a competitive advantage, especially over a much larger number of people who happen to be poor workers. If you set up a "public option" in the election system that is competitive with private funding routes and actually kicks in more money if a candidate who is taking public money is being outspent by his opponent, then a lot more people would run as clean candidates supported by taxpayer dollars, not money from sources that may be tainted or come with strings attached.

Otherwise, you're always going to have puppets who can simply threaten to kill honest legislation because it threatens the puppet master's power.

[flpoljunkie]

15. Sadly, without Obama leading, there won't be any public financing of federal campaigns.

Durbin has 5 co-sponsors for his bill, S. 752, while the House companion bill, H. R. 1826, has 124 co-sponsors.

The Senators, especially, do not want to level the playing field when it comes to their re-elections.

[Selatius]

18. Because Dr. No (AKA Sen. Tom Coburn) would face a lot more challenges to his seat if it passed.

If Coburn can get away with killing good legislation that a very strong majority of people support and still keep his seat, I'd like to see him try that if there were a public option in place for federal election campaigns. See how many people would run just on the bills Coburn has essentially killed or threatened to kill with his threats to filibuster.

[msongs]

26. Obama IS leading - denial of cheaper drug importation, give joe what he wants. nt

[DrToast]

21. What is he asking for? Democracy?

Oh the humanity!

[ruggerson]

19. Very bad move

When the Republicans regain control, this will be a nightmare.

[cascadiance]

31. If the Democrats would stop playing a "football game" and start serving the PEOPLE, this likely

won't happen for many years. The problem is, since they are playing the same game serving corporate interests that the Republicans play, it very likely WILL happen, and the corporatists will LOVE this way of disaffecting a confused voting public and staying in power all of these years.

It's time the progressives take a firm stand and find a way to make it clear to the American public who is working for THEM and who is working for the current fascist corporatist components of our government, to build towards that people serving majority that people won't let out of power.

[Va Lefty]

22. I suspect the pukes have already decided to kill the filibuster when they are back in the Majority

and we will be told by the pukes how unfair it is and really undemocratic! Their hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[treestar]

27. Nervous about this because of what Republicans in power could do

but it is a good idea. Republicans are currently abusing it. The Senate is already a drag on any type of action, enough to protect the minority. with the way things are, the minority can actually prevail.

[w4rma]

33. Democrats won't use it anyway. (nt)

[beyurslf]

28. I think that it a bad idea actually.

As much I hate what the minority did the HCR bill, it is huge pieces of legislation like it that need a substantial majority to pass.

[cascadiance]

30. But it is bad when it fuels the obstructionists who use it to contrary to American people's interest

When you have Ben Nelson throwing not only perhaps unconstitutional restrictions for women's rights, but also language that exempts his own state (Nebraska) from having to be a part of paying for Medicaid that all other states are being asked to do (and I believe some of the other Blue Dog/New Democrat holdouts are playing similar GAMES with this legislation, that is why in this case a substantial majority to pass it is a BAD thing. And it isn't just this "huge" legislation like this that would get this "super majority" treatment, but ANY bill the Republicans and these other DINOs want to block. That's simply WRONG when a minority representing an even smaller minority of population can block anything from going through congress for political as well as self serving interests, and not the majority of Americans' interests.

[Armstead]

29. Tghis is harkin's way of saying "I hate having to support a bad healthcare bill."

[w4rma]

32. Good bill. Sen. Harkin is one of the Senate's best Senators. (nt)

[SoFlaJet]

34. Snowball's chance in Hades

I believe it takes a 3/4 majority to pass anything like this through and so you can immediately subtract the 40 republicans and probably 10 conservative democrats

[Better Believe It]

35. A simple way to break alleged filibusters. Make the Republicans engage in real filibusters!

Senator Harkin hasn't considered this?

He certainly knows that Senator Reid and the Democratic majority in the Senate have the power to force "on the floor" Senate filibusters rather than permit a single Republican to turn in a piece of paper declaring a filibuster is in progress.

So why doesn't he propose that? Perhaps he doesn't want to embarass his Senate leader, Reid.

[Blasphemer]

36. I'm one who favored the Nuclear option when the GOP was in the majority

It would not have made much of a difference during those cold cruel years but it certainly would have made a difference today. I have no problem with absolute majority rule. If 50 Democrats favor something and 9 oppose, it helps to drawn distinctions in the public mind. If 9 Democrats oppose something that turns out to be good, they will be held accountable. If 9 Democrats oppose something that turns out to be bad, the people might look to elect more Democrats like those 9. The same goes for the GOP. Having "The Democrats" as a bloc of 60 means the good and bad are all lumped together. I've always hated the meme about the magical 60 number. I knew nothing good would come of it.

[flpoljunkie]

37. The filibuster is certainly not what the Constitution intended and makes the Senate dysfunctional.

[totodeinhere]

38. Then what happens the next time the GOP gets a majority in the Senate?

They could do a lot of damage.

[stevietheman]

40. True, but that damage could be much more easily reversed if Dems regained power. n/t

n/t

[totodeinhere]

43. Good point. I wish we had an easy answer, but we don't. n/t

[quakerboy]

46. They did it anyway

Finding enough blue dogs and stockholm sufferers to pass their crap was no problem. And they found ways to do what they wanted even when they didn't get the votes.

It is ignored during GOP misrule, and only comes into effect when there is threat that moderate or other unRepublican legislation might actually be considered. It is useless to democracy, at best.

[Better Believe It]

39. Democrats are now running the Senate? When did that happen?

[Arkana]

41. Bad move.

If/when we end up in the minority again we will need the filibuster. Why are the Dems so short-sighted on this?

[quakerboy]

47. Because it does us no good anyway

There is always a corporate dem to step up and void a filibuster, or a way to get around and ignore them when GOP has power. The law has no effect on them.

The only purpose the Filibuster serves is to block democracy in what limited form the senate allows.

[Clio the Leo]

44. The President certainly seems frustrated with it....

... and mentioned the filibuster as one of the reasons for the delay in getting the HCR bill through Congress.

But I'm not clear if he plans to do anything about it, or was trying to put across the message that the GOP were the trouble makers.

I think a review of the passage about the filibuster in "Audacity" is in order.....

[flpoljunkie]

55. The 'filibuster' means a supermajority vote is needed to move anything forward in the Senate.

It's not what the Constitution intended. It gives way too much power to individual senators who are willing to put their own needs above the common good.