BUSTING THE FILIBUSTER, by Alex Altman -- (I have copied the entire article here since Time magazine, while allowing sharing through Facebook or Google+, will not allow non-subscribers to access full articles with just a link.)
While both parties are guilty of filibuster abuse, the past four years have provided an example of unprecedented application. Mitch McConnell's use of the filibuster to stall a bill he had introduced demonstrates how ludicrous the situation has become. It is time to make our Senate a place of progress rather than procedural paralysis.
The underlines are mine.
"Jeff Merkley first came to the Senate as a 19-year-old intern in 1976, in an era before cell phones and C-SPAN, back when the upper chamber still got things done. "I saw legislation in action," he recalls. So he was shocked when he returned in 2009, this time as the junior Senator from Oregon, to find that the world's greatest deliberative body spent very little time deliberating. Merkley says the root of the dysfunction was easy to spot: widespread abuse of the filibuster, the procedural tactic Senators use to block a vote on a bill or presidential nomination.
Now Merkley and a handful of other Democratic reformers are trying to cure the Senate's paralysis by curbing the use of the filibuster. While their proposal will struggle to overcome Republican objections, it could lead to changes that make the Senate a place of real work once again. But don't hold your breath.
The filibuster, a term that derives from the Dutch word for pirate, was never intended to be a feature of the Senate. It became possible in 1806, after Vice President Aaron Burr suggested that the Senate streamline its rule book by dropping a provision that empowered the majority to end debate on a bill. The change allowed a single member to stall legislation, and the tactic gained popularity. In 1917, Woodrow Wilson--faced with opposition to his plan to arm merchant ships during World War I--muscled through Senate Rule 22, which created the so-called cloture vote, by which Senators can overcome the filibuster. Until the mid-1970s, filibusters were rare.
In today's polarized Senate, use of the tactic has skyrocketed. Members of both parties have wielded it to stop all sorts of things. Since 2007, Democrats have invoked cloture almost 400 times to break Republican filibusters. In December, Republican Senate leader Mitch McConnell filibustered one of his own bills--a moment that crystallized the chamber's sad journey from a once great debating society to something of a laughingstock. The Senate, says Democratic Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, is a "graveyard for good ideas."
Merkley, Udall and Iowa's Tom Harkin want to force filibusters out of the shadows and into the spotlight. Current Senate rules permit "silent" filibusters, enabling members to stymie proceedings from the comfort of their hideaway offices. The heart of the Democrats' proposal would require Senators to hold forth on the floor when they want to delay a vote, in the kind of dramatic soliloquy immortalized in the Frank Capra movie Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The change would not only require Senators to devote precious time to filibustering but also make them accountable to voters for frivolous obstruction.
This being the Senate, Merkley and Udall want to fix the filibuster with a procedural gambit of their own. Senate practice requires a two-thirds majority to alter the rules, but a simple majority can make tweaks at the outset of a legislative session. The 113th Congress opened on Jan. 3. But rather than adjourn, the Senate went into recess, freezing the chamber on its first legislative day to buy time to debate the fate of the filibuster. The Senate may be sluggish, but at least it has the power to make a single day last for weeks.
Republicans won't easily relinquish the minority party's biggest weapon. The talking filibuster is a "deal killer" for Republicans, predicts Sarah Binder, an expert on congressional procedure. And as Merkley learned when he floated a similar proposal two years ago, filibuster reform is unpopular with some senior Democrats who spent time in the minority and want to preserve their leverage should they end up there again.
Merkley says Democrats now have the 51 votes required to force reform, a prospect that could coax the GOP to negotiate. He sees "the makings of a substantive bipartisan deal" to ease the legislative logjam while ensuring the minority's right to offer amendments. Compromise has been in short supply on Capitol Hill, but one of the few forces capable of provoking change is public censure. Recent polls showed that voters ranked the 112th Congress as less popular than cockroaches, colonoscopies and communism. If anything can make the members of the Senate work together, it's the threat of being sent home."
No comments:
Post a Comment