More

Tom Harkin: 'Fireworks' And Shot At Filibuster Reform Coming Jan. 5

First Posted: 12/15/10 11:24 AM ET Updated: 05/25/11 07:20 PM ET

Tom Harkin Filibuster Reform

WASHINGTON -- Senate Democrats will make a dramatic effort to reform the rules of the chamber when the next Congress begins, one of the body's primary filibuster-reform advocates said Wednesday morning.

Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has championed a weakening of the procedural mechanism that allows the minority party to hold up legislation, predicted "fireworks" on Jan. 5, 2011 -- the day on which the Senate can, he argued, revamp its rules by a simple majority vote.

"There could be some fireworks. There could be some fireworks on January fifth," Harkin said at a pro-reform event sponsored by several like-minded organizations. "I'm going to be there. I'm armed. I'm armed with a lot of history, and I know the rules, and I know the procedures too, so we will see what happens on the fifth."

"[Former Sen.] Robert Byrd in 1975, the last time that we changed the rules and [brought the filibuster threshold] from 67 [votes] down to 60, actually stated on the floor that a majority, 51 senators, could change the rules. And that's what we intend to do and that is what we are working on right now. We are coming on the fifth to basically send a motion to the vice president ... that will change the rules and there is a procedure to provide 51 votes to do that. Robert Byrd said that in 1975 and that's what we are going to try to do."

Essentially, that path to reform requires Vice President Joe Biden -- who supports weakening the filibuster -- to rule on the first day of the next session that the Senate has the authority to write its own rules. Republicans, presumably, would immediately move to object, but Democrats could then move to table the objection, setting up a key up-or-down vote. If 50 Democrats voted to table the objection, the Senate would then move to a vote on a new set of rules, which could be approved by a simple majority.

Harkin's explicit planning may be the most detailed public statement on reform strategy to date. Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) has long been advocating changing the Senate rules on the first day of the next session, so as to skirt a supermajority threshold, but his proposal was considered just one of several being pushed by pro-reform advocates.

Robert Creamer, an influential Democratic operative, recently wrote a piece for The Huffington Post arguing that "the first day of the next Congress, January 5, 2011, could be the most important legislative day of the entire session." Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) was even more bullish Tuesday night, telling MSNBC that he expected "attempts to" reform the filibuster to happen before Congress adjourned.

The shape of the final product that Democrats attempt to push remains unclear. Proposals range from a gradual reduction in the vote threshold needed to break a filibuster to a simpler requirement that the minority party keep all 40 members on the floor to sustain it.

Harkin hinted that the GOP is looking to cut a deal with Democrats in an effort to ensure that anything they pushed was not too far-reaching. "Right now there are talks going on with Republicans and Democrats for some changes so we don't get to that point," he said.

But, at least before an audience of reform advocates, Harkin seemed uninterested in incremental changes. And while there may not even be 51 votes to change the rules, let alone any Republicans willing to compromise, Harkin insisted he wouldn't settle for reforms that still allowed the minority party to bring the legislative process to a halt.

"I want my legacy to be that I did everything possible to try to end minority rule in the Senate. And I believe this is the way to do it," he said. "What I'm fearful of is that, knowing how this place works, that we might come down to some minor little fixes that still will not prevent the minority from stopping everything. The minority can still stop it, but we'll make it a little bit more efficient, maybe, but the minority -- to me, that's the essential question. Are you still going to give the minority the power to absolutely block and stop everything? It's a fundamental question."

FOLLOW HUFFPOST POLITICS
Subscribe to the HuffPost Hill newsletter!
 
 
  • Comments
  • 2,992
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (77 total)
  1 of 13  
COMMUNITY PUNDITS
photo
siamao 03:07 PM on 12/15/2010
IT'S ALL ABOUT PARTY UNITY

Tom Udall's "Constitutional Option" is to ask the Senate Chair (i.e. VP Biden) to rule on the
Senate's ability to change the rules. Only 51 votes would be needed to uphold the ability
to establish new rules.

Surely to Gawd Democrats will be cohesive enough to support such a vote on 1-5-11.
Of course, Republicans are going to formally object (don't  Read More...
02:24 AM on 12/23/2010
The rule should return to the 67 votes our country used for almost 200 years. The ability of a minority in the Senate to slow legislation is what the Senate is for. It protects us all from mob rule. If the Dems change the rules in January, they will deeply regret it in 2012 when the Repubs take back the Senate.
02:30 PM on 12/23/2010
Mob rule, eh?

I suppose you're one of these true "republic"ans who oppose the direct election of senators?!
09:11 PM on 12/24/2010
Absolutely! The selection of Senators by the state's legislatures was one of the most important checks built in to our republic. The progressives who changed it 90 years ago screwed things up.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
06:54 PM on 12/18/2010
Congress can fix itself on January 5th

Once every 2 years on the first day of the new Senate there is an opportunity for the senators to change the rules of the Senate and get rid of rules like the filibuster that allow the minority to rule over the majority. On January 5th on a simple majority vote they could choose to end the abuses of power that has caused the People to despise Congress so much.

The Democrats have the votes to make it happen, but it would end their power to abuse the system if they should become a minority. You would think however with Republican gains that Republicans might be in favor of change as well and maybe some Republicans might help vote in the rule changes. No matter how it happens it is a change that is necessary. We need to end rules that keep the will of the people from being held hostage.
01:54 PM on 12/16/2010
Be careful what you ask for. Changing the cloture motion on a filibuster to a simple majority vote will be a mistake. Democrats will have nothing to say when Republicans gain control of both houses and the executive branch and begin to dismantle Democratic spending programs. Look at the numbers, this (cutting spending) must be done eventually. Years of Democratic work will be easily lost. This is okay with me, but you Democrats had better be carful what you wish for.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Christian Buhl
01:57 PM on 12/16/2010
Exactly what I was thinking

Obviously, the political landscape can change in two years, but nothing changes the fact that the Republican­s are defending 10 seats, and the Democrats are defending 23 seats. It's not going to be very hard for the Republicans to get to a small majority.

The Democrats might regret the fact that they neutered the filibuster so soon before they actually needed it.
02:35 PM on 12/23/2010
STATEMENTS LIKE THESE ARE THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY.

In every other other country, 1) majorities legislate 2) electorates decide whether they like the results 3) electorates either A) reward the previous majority for good legislation with reelection, or B) punish them with their ouster.

The filibuster denies the majority the right to legislate, unlike everywhere else in the democratic/parliamentary world, thereby denying our democracy the ability to get ANYTHING DONE.

Then what's the point of voting, if you have no governance/legislation to deliver a verdict on???
02:37 PM on 12/23/2010
If Republicans get rid of hard-fought Democratic programs, and the people don't like it, they can subsequently elect Democrats, and without the filibuster, have those Democrats simply reinstate the program(s).

THat's how democracy SHOOULD work. (Except here in the USA)
01:43 PM on 12/16/2010
Silly Democrats...........trying to make us believe that they're innocent......

Prior to the 110th Congress, the Democrats had been responsible for 352 (56.4%) uses of all the rule while the Republicans were responsible for just 272 (43.5%) uses.

Of the 735 times that the Filibuster motion was used from the 93rd through the 110th Congress, Republicans are currently responsible for approximately 52.2% of it's use and Democrats are responsible for 47.8% of it's use. That's hardly a huge lopsided use in favor of Republicans!

Up until the 110th Congress began, Democrats never complained about the Filibuster because it was their friend and they used it more often than Republicans.

Republicans have had to use the rule to stop Obama's radical agenda in the 111th Congress because Obama and many House and Senate Democrats in congress essentially lied to the American people in 2006 and 2008 by running as moderates and then once elected and in absolute power from 2009 to 2011 Democrats have governed from the far left which has required much more use of the Filibuster by the Republican minority.

These are facts, and it really angers me that I have to point them out to so many people.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montn2
02:21 PM on 12/16/2010
We do not want you to be angry, so just do not bother to post.
photo
psmarc93
Mean people suck
12:37 PM on 12/16/2010
Go for it. However, will the Democrats be able to rally to 51 votes when needed? I guess a lot of the blue dogs got kicked out, but hoping for the Democrats to pull together has been disappointing.
photo
NealHib
The war on drugs is a corporate war
12:17 PM on 12/16/2010
If they don't get this done, then Dr. Dean and his fifty state strategy needs to be brought back right away.
photo
NealHib
The war on drugs is a corporate war
12:08 PM on 12/16/2010
I like the requirement of 41 people on the floor to sustain the filibuster. That will shut them down most of the time, because the others will want to be out in front of the TV cameras or gathering their bribes.
This could have the duel effect of filibuster and fundraising reform.
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
UpstateNY
10:16 AM on 12/16/2010
Good for you Senator Harkin - nothing will ever get done if this dumb rule isn't changed.
09:17 AM on 12/16/2010
Please do if the Republicans had done so when they had the chance just think what we could have accomplished.

1. Tax Cuts would now be permanent
2. Medicare and Social Security would be private.
3. More conservative courts.

Just a sample of what we could have accomplished if Republicans had the courage to change the Filibuster rule to simple majority. With firm control of the House now in our hands we no longer need the Filibuster in the Senate. Go ahead and make our day when we regain control in 2012 say goodbye to Obamacare.
11:13 AM on 12/16/2010
The filibuster is undemocratic. The majority should have the ability to pass legislation without the need to compromise with an outspoken minority. What we've had this past congress is extortion by the minority. If what you say above is going to happen then so be it. Personally I think more compromise will follow the end of the filibuster. Without the ability to stop legislation from passing more effort will be made to place constructive amendments into the legislation by the minority party.

If the republicans dare to privatize social security it will be the end of the republican party. Like you say go ahead and make our day.
12:04 PM on 12/16/2010
Only for Liberal Democrats many Americans would favor, the point is without Filibuster the majority with only 51 votes can pass anything they want and there would be no need to compromise. Democrats also need to be careful what they wish for with Republicans now in control of the House there will be little need for Filibuster in the upcoming congress but once Democrats invoke the so called Nuclear Option there will be no going back.
02:26 AM on 12/23/2010
We live in a republic, not a democracy. Try reading the Constitution.
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
amleth
big fan of humanity - very often disappointed
01:33 PM on 12/16/2010
Any senator (only one is needed) can prevent a bill from going to the floor for consideration by placing a hold (often secret) on the legislation.

If Democrats want to play the same game as Republicans did, they have a couple of ways to do so. It is always easier to obstruct than to build.

The Democrats are not likely to do that, because almost all of them, unlike the Republicans, take their oath of office seriously and intend to work to move the country in a healthy and positive direction.

Republicans care not what happens to the nation nor especially to its citizens  as long as they can further enrich themselves and their corporate bosses. Should the nation go bankrupt and fail, they will still have the money in their offshore accounts (probably in Euros or the Chinese currency).

But a better outcome for them, and one that many hold fervently in their hearts and minds (?) is that thewre shiould be two classes: a ruling elits, and a servant working (slave) class.

They are perilously close to achieving that.

Since the Reagan administration plotted to bankrupt the government, the wealthy have made more money for themselves than the sum total of money that was made prior to 1980 by everyone in America. Meantime, the wealth held or earned by the middle class has remained stagnant, and that by the poor has gone down.

There are Republicans out there, and corporate executives, who want and intend to lay hands on 100% of the wealth of the nation.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
montn2
02:24 PM on 12/16/2010
Amleth: brilliant, well stated. totally agree. thanks! faved
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
VOTER
Freedom from fear - the philosophy of human rights
08:23 AM on 12/16/2010
Dear Senator Harkin,

If your plan proceeds, I will celebrate the New Year on
January 5th.
Without your plan.......................
Happy New Year! January 5th, 2011.
Sounds good to me.
Carry on.

Regards,
VOTER
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
dragucci
Caustic1
08:16 AM on 12/16/2010
Thats all well and great if it can be done,but what needs to be done first is legislation to help those americans still without benefits to support their families.Senator KYL thinks these are lazy people and held up benefits for millions with his narrow minded bigotry.A simple stipend of 300 dollars a week,senator KYL spends that on lunch,but can't see fit to make sure americas children have somethingnto eat.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
capitaldysfunction
White male never voted Republican
12:44 AM on 12/16/2010
Reform? Under this failed system of governance? Corruption rules. Change will not come. Let the country die and start over from scratch with a single legislature and a parliamentary democracy that allows the governing party to implement its program. Only then will the American voter have a clue about what he is voting for.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Shaun Hensley
The American Experiment has failed
06:24 AM on 12/16/2010
Absolutely!
photo
HUFFPOST PUNDIT
Dnietz
Tired of censorship? Reddit
07:19 AM on 12/16/2010
I have thought about that. Are we really that sure that a Parliamentary system is superior? They also seem to have lots of gridlock. Why can't we just get rid of the gridlock?

I do agree with you that we don't need an upper and lower house. I think we should take all our current 100 Senators and just add them into the House of Reps.

So, the number of Reps would go up by 100, 2 from each state, and we can dissolve the Senate. That would be truly more democratic.

Having the extra 2 from each state to start with (meaning each state has a minimum of 3 Reps) would give a tiny bit of protection to those small states worried about getting no Representation. But right now, Wyoming gets the same Senate representation as California, Texas, and NY, which is utterly ridiculous.

I'm sure people can think of other major changes to make our system more democratic, but I am just not so sure a Parliamentary system is the way to go. 

The other major problem we seem to have is the Justice Department being subservient to the President. I don't know what can be done to make that better.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
WIpatriot
I've seen enough to make me Progressive
12:44 PM on 12/16/2010
I really see the problem as corruption...honor among thi3v3s and all....
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
bacaja
11:57 PM on 12/15/2010
Clinton and Repubs eliminated the office of "Special prosecutor" Just before Bush and Repubs took power. Of course Repubs don't want Dems to do to them what they've done for 2 years, thwarting all democratic legislation.
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
rekky
Common sense is not common
10:18 PM on 12/15/2010
The purpose of this is to let the unanimous Republicans along with a few Democrats extend the Bush tax cuts permanently prior to their expiration in the next Congress.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
murphthesurf3
Proud to be an independent progressive
10:18 PM on 12/15/2010
HOW THE CONTEMPORARY SENATE IS FAILING TO LIVE UP TO ITS OWN TRADITION

With Due Diligence and Solemn Deliberati­­on
On the Senate's Role in the Legislativ­­e Process
Warnings About the Filibuster from Daniel Webster
19th Century Statesman, Member of the House and Senate, New Hampshire

During his forty years in national politics Webster served in the House of Representa­­tives for ten years (represent­­ing New Hampshire)­­, the Senate for nineteen years (represent­­ing Massachuse­­tts), and served as Secretary of State for three presidents­­. He should know.


The essay outlines the duty of the Senate to consider legislatio­­n outside of political strategy and with the long view in mind. "The Senate represents the most dignified part of our government­­. Its rules are set by gentlemen for gentlemen based on mutual respect and affection. The tribulatio­­ns that mark the competitio­­n of political partisansh­­ip must be set aside for the good of the entire citizenry.­­

On the matter of the filibuster which had hardly ever been used in the Senate until the late 1830's. Webster regarded it as "a final bulwark against hasty decision to be very rarely employed." Even so, he wrote, "the filibuster remains a grave danger to the welfare of the republic as it allows a minority to dictate, almost as a matter of whim, to the majority without check. It is thus a possible agency of tyranny and must be tempered by good sense, or if need be, by rule."