iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Sen. Bennet Introduces Ambitious Filibuster Reform Bill

Filibuster

First Posted: 05/04/10 06:12 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 04:45 PM ET

Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.) has formally introduced a bill that would fundamentally alter a minority party's capacity to hold up legislative business, becoming another in a handful of Senate Democrats to champion procedural reform.

The freshmen Colorado Democrat filed legislation on Thursday that, among other things, would eliminate the ability of a single Senator to conduct anonymous holds on nominees and revamp the ability of minority parties to launch drawn-out filibusters

The legislative language itself is quite arcane. But the gist of it is this. Cloture votes (those requiring a 60-vote majority to end debate) wouldn't be eliminated. But after three such votes, the threshold for blocking action would be set at 45 Senators. Important here is that Bennet is not focusing on the threshold for passing cloture, which other lawmakers championing filibuster reform have done. Rather, he's putting the onus on the party doing the filibustering to actually come up with the numbers to sustain a filibuster.

There is a catch, however. If the minority party holding up the legislation can find a Senator who caucuses with the majority party to join them in their effort to block cloture, the threshold for blockage would be 41 Senators (meaning that 60 Senators would still be needed to break the filibuster).

But there is one more catch on top of that. If, after the third cloture vote, the majority party were to get the support of three members who caucus with the minority party to vote with them, the threshold for blockage would be raised to 45.

The second procedural area that Bennet tackles involves the process of holds -- in which one Senator can prevent a vote on legislative activity that is being considered by unanimous consent (see: Jim Bunning and unemployment benefits). Under the Bennet's revisions, Senators would not be able to launch holds anonymously. Rather, their names would be published in the Congressional Record "not later than 2 session days after the date of such notice."

But Bennet makes a hold even trickier than that. Any Senator trying to keep a hold going beyond those two days will have to have the support of at least one Senator who caucuses with the other political party. And, "under no circumstance shall a particular objection to a nomination be recognized for more than 30 days."

The goal, as with other filibuster reform efforts, is to provide some flow to a legislative process that is decidedly choppy. Unlike his colleagues, Bennet is actively trying to encourage bipartisan participation by adding an incentive for minority members to recruit majority members to their causes and vice versa.

But this effort faces the same pitfalls as the others. Aides to the Colorado Democrat acknowledge that it would like take 67 votes to pass the bill into law (owing to the fact that it is changing Congressional rules). As of now, Bennet is the lone sponsor on the bill.

READ THE BILL:


bennetfili

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.) has formally introduced a bill that would fundamentally alter a minority party's capacity to hold up legislative business, becoming another in a handful of Senate Democrat...
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Col.) has formally introduced a bill that would fundamentally alter a minority party's capacity to hold up legislative business, becoming another in a handful of Senate Democrat...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 332
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (10 total)
BrighterStar
Let Freedom Ring
12:52 PM on 03/07/2010
If he wants to get republicans on board maybe he should make it so that it would not take effect until January of 2011. That way it would not seem so partisan.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
funnyguy
08:57 PM on 03/06/2010
Not "ambitious." WEAK
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AmericanDreamWarrior
My progressive liberal site www.foksociety.com
03:42 PM on 03/06/2010
Dems better be careful. The reptiles are great at strategery and this may be exactly what they're after. Thinking they'll regain power (and we're stupid give it to them too), they'll effectively hamstring the dems when they're the minority (as if that's really neccessary).
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
PatrickJ08
10:55 PM on 03/06/2010
What are the other options though?

Hope that republicans start doing doing their jobs?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AmericanDreamWarrior
My progressive liberal site www.foksociety.com
10:00 AM on 03/07/2010
No, the dems need to do there's!

As some would say, they need to grow a pair and use them!

Just like they did with Bunning when he stood out front denying 1. whatever millions of people unemployment benefits and send thousands home from road projects, effectively causing them to be employed. They shined a big bright spotlight, didn't cave and after a few days, republicans, suprised at the standoff, pulled Bunning aside and told him to stop.

Every time they "threaten" to fillibuster, let them, instead of compromising at the 1st sign of trouble and turning HCR into mostly a boon to insurance companies. Have them stand up and tell Americans they want them to die and they're wholey owned subsidiaries of the insurance comapnies. Then laugh all the way to the polls.

The republicans are nothing but a bunch of bullies that are shills of big money. Instead of acting like a bunch of wedgie traumatized geeks, they need to stand up and act like what they really are, a mandate of action by the American people to stand up against the party that cynically sold us all out for personal gain and fix it.

Now that's not too much to ask for right? Lol
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AmericanDreamWarrior
My progressive liberal site www.foksociety.com
10:02 AM on 03/07/2010
Or I meant to say...

The dems need to do their's

An edit button would be great.
photo
yoozum
I hate double standards.
11:58 AM on 03/06/2010
Yeah, assuming the filibuster bill is met with agreement by all Dems, it will still be filibustered...

In my opinion, abolish the Senate and send all of them packing. Republicans won't let Democrats get anything done, and when/if Republicans regain the Senate majority, Democrats won't let them get anything done anymore.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
AmericanDreamWarrior
My progressive liberal site www.foksociety.com
03:27 PM on 03/06/2010
Oooo oooo oooo fanned for adding another drum beat to the "Abolish The Senate" sentiment!
02:22 AM on 03/06/2010
The GOP will somehow Fillibuster the Fillibuster Reform Bill.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
eurohistory
Historian and educator. Liberal Democrat!
01:41 AM on 03/06/2010
The filibuster is an antidemocratic legislative gimmick. It must be done away with. Elections have consequences...even for my opponents...when they win...I bear and grin it!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Brothaman2k
02:45 PM on 03/07/2010
It doesn't need to be done away with. If the majority party is, with numbers and in a completely democratic manner, doing something egregious... like say killing social security and medicare, then the minority party needs a chance to make a last stand and be the final protection against some kind of terrible legislation going into effect.

The clauses about what happens if you get a senator to cross the aisle during these cloture votes is dumb, but otherwise, forcing the other side to maintain minimum numbers to maintain a filibuster is a reasonable reform that will make a difference.
photo
traumabob
Sardonic Pseudo-intellectual Unabashed Liberal
05:55 PM on 03/05/2010
The Conservatives are all about "the intentions of the Founding Fathers". Can someone show me, please, where it's written that the Founding Fathers championed Senate filibuters. C'mon, Glen Beck, show me!
04:01 PM on 03/05/2010
Be careful what you wish for. The Republicans used Ken Starr to get rid of the independent counsel which could have been used in 2006 when the Dems took control. They might just vote to end the filibuster and other procedures and wait until their turn.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
GrandmaBEE
06:36 PM on 03/05/2010
I was just thinking that. They would use the heck out of the fact there were no or limited power to filibuster. But hey then again they were able to pass any and everything they wanted during Bush term. It really doesn't matter. It is just going to take more power away from the Dems in the future.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:07 PM on 03/05/2010
I don't like how the bill assumes a two-party system. I don't like a two-party system.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
12:37 PM on 03/05/2010
What the hell?

Is Bennett trying to convince people that Congress might actually be semi-functional?
11:50 AM on 03/05/2010
Unless there are 67 votes in the Senate to change the rules, then there is no change. Everyone knows the math which is why it's just political theater.
photo
Yellowstonedemocrat
lives in Yellowstone
11:25 AM on 03/06/2010
So am I misreading this? I'm sure he has good intentions. But is Bennett's final result going to make the rules even more hard to understand than they already are?

Yeah, that should be easy to get 67 votes for! Right.
02:47 PM on 03/06/2010
Since it's legislation, not a rule change, it may be passed like any other Act of Congress. Since the Rules of the Senate are subservient to an Act of Congress, the current filibuster rule will be, essentially, overturned.

Rule changes in the middle of a session require 67 votes...

I know, it's stupid.
12:10 PM on 03/07/2010
Anything that will change the Senate rules will require a 67 vote. If the Senate rules are to be changed, then a 67 vote is needed regardless of the mechanism.

For example of just how restrictive this process is, if for some reason the parliamentarian is overruled by the President of the Senate and a change to Senate rules were to be placed in reconciliation, that would require a 67 vote as well, not just a 50+1 vote. I don't think there is any way to change the Senate rules without a 67 vote.
photo
Level7
Not the book
11:40 AM on 03/05/2010
Michael Bennet may look like a Sunday school teacher but he is a Progressive rock star. He's actually working for Coloradans and not special interests. I'm impressed with his efforts.
photo
maslin
At 6 bn km, it's mostly small stuff.
12:37 PM on 03/05/2010
Great Sargent painting, btw.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
I once had a Crysknife
It's spelled right!
10:54 AM on 03/05/2010
Sounds good, maybe this will pass just in time for when the Republicans take back over Congress in November and the Democrats will have shot themselves in the foot.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
soitgoes12
Thou shalt keep thy religion to thyself
11:00 AM on 03/05/2010
If you can't see that this is the best thing for both parties, I feel sorry for you.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rmonroe
11:56 AM on 03/05/2010
When is the best thing ever adopted? It will never happen. Unless the American people get behind it and demand it. But even then it would be an uphill battle. Politicians like the way it is now since they can use political theater to get attention. That is what most of the holdups are about, not really blocking legislation, but getting their names on the front pages of newspapers and websites. Well, except large legislation like health care, that they are really trying to block until the end. But if we have reconciliation filibusters shouldn't be a big problems. Democrats just need to grow a pair and get this thing passed. They are doomed if they don't, in my opinion. Of course the media is reporting the opposite, that if they do pass reform they are doomed. Just another ploy by the media to confuse everyone. The media in this country has become a joke. The internet is the only way to get real information anymore. And you have some who want to screw up the internet. I hope that doesn't happen.
RTIII
Poster of over 0.0135% of all HufPost comments
12:41 PM on 03/05/2010
I'm not interested in whatever's good for the parties. I'm interested in what's good for the PEOPLE.

And this bill is probably good for the people.
.
proudcalib
I never said it was going to be easy
11:54 AM on 03/05/2010
That may well be the case, but the system is completely broken, regardless of which party is in the majority. I'd take my chances with this change.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zetacplus
Conservatism has failed America
10:19 AM on 03/05/2010
Wow. Our gov is completely dysfunctional.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
rmonroe
11:56 AM on 03/05/2010
You just figured that out?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
zetacplus
Conservatism has failed America
08:15 PM on 03/05/2010
No, I'm just furious that it can't be fixed. No matter who we elect it's the same old song and dance. We need a new style of government, this isn't working. The people have been left out. Why does anyone even bother voting anymore, we might as well sit home on election day.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
sposton
right to tell what they don't want to hear
10:00 AM on 03/05/2010
Senate may have outlived its usefulness. Senate was supposed to be the check on the people's irrational exuberance represented in the House. The House itself is in pockets of kleptocracy. What checks and balances is Senate supposed to provide? All I see is just more blocking for kleptocracy.

No, we are not get rid of the Senate but we should look at what is supposed to do and what it actually does. I think we take all that our government does or does not do for granted. The ideas behind our government no longer resonate with the American people. We take our Constitution as a mere inheritance form the wiser past, something to be venerated but that is not how it was taken by either the Framers or the generations after them. The Constitution is an embodiment of the ideas behind it and as those ideas lose their strength the closer our Constitution gets to just "that God damn piece of paper".