Senate Democrats Forfeit 50-Vote Option For Rules Changes

WASHINGTON -- The window to change the Senate rules during this session through a simple majority vote ended without action last night as lawmakers in the chamber agreed to adjourn the first day of the 112th Congress.

"They adjourned last night," said a top GOP aide. "We're no longer in the first legislative day."

A senior Democratic aide confirmed last night's adjournment, a formal end to the "first day" of the legislative session, which had actually been prolonged since early January. With it went the chance for Democrats to exercise what's known as the "constitutional option" -- a maneuver that rules-reform advocates said would have allowed members to present their procedural changes with 51 votes.

The Democrats' abdication of the constitutional option was negotiated hours and days earlier. In talks with leadership, Democratic lawmakers had expressed ambivalence about setting such a precedent for future chambers. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) had asked for unanimous consent to consider their package of rule changes, but it was rejected.

"To be able to invoke the constitutional option, a resolution has to be placed on the Senate calendar and to place something on the calendar you need unanimous consent," a Senate aide said. "Unanimous consent was rejected last night."

In the past, the aide added, the minority party has traditionally not objected to unanimous consent requests on similar, start-of-the-session business.

In place of more sweeping action, lawmakers will push a set of smaller reforms, including an end to secret holds and a reduction in the number of judicial and executive-branch nominations requiring confirmation. Those measures could get votes as early as Thursday, and would be considered either as rules changes (which would require 67 votes for passage) or standing orders (which would have a 60-vote threshold.).

The parties may also reach an informal agreement under which Republicans would filibuster less in exchange for Democrats allowing them to offer more amendments.

"The Republicans would say we don't allow enough time for amendments. That we do something called 'fill the tree', which blocks amendment," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), the chair of the Rules Committee, said Tuesday on MSNBC's "Morning Joe." "There's some justification on both sides there."

Comments

[ehorth]

04:18 PM on 01/27/2011

"lawmakers will push a set of smaller reforms, including an end to secret holds and a reduction in the number of judicial and executive-branch nominations requiring confirmation."

A couple of points stand out:
If they manage to reduce the number of judicial-etc. nominations needing confirmation, that will go a long way to filling the number of current vacancies we have all around the country. Not having enough judges affects all of us. Having Congress confirm every single appointment is such a waste of theirs' and our time. It's just more grandstanding and obfuscating.

The other point is that after the intense and productive work accomplishments of the lame-duck session, not getting these procedures done now will make the coming weeks and months in Congress as productive as molasses.

[Mr Universe]

01:52 PM on 01/27/2011

"The parties may also reach an informal agreement under which Republicans would filibuster less in exchange for Democrats allowing them to offer more amendments."

Yeah, like that's gonna happen. Sad day for Democracy.

[Mariosright]

12:19 PM on 01/27/2011

To the Progressives and others complaining here, remember it takes Unanimous Consent and repubs as well as dems rejected it. It is not something dems could get through by themselves.
Plenty of blame on both sides.

[Querent]

04:45 AM on 01/27/2011

Whose fault is this? Reed's and Schumer's. When any Democratic senator showed reluctance to vote for this, the majority leader should have said, "Fine. We'll call a vote. At the end of the day, we'll have a press conference in which I will tell the American people who blocked this action. Then you can deal with the voters in your district with this as an issue." Of course, Reed would never do that, since his main concern is the comfort of senators, not getting things done for the people. So now, the credit is his, and the Chair of Rules Committee's. Good work, you incompetent, useless, slaggards.

[Mariosright]

12:15 PM on 01/27/2011

They are still considering stopping "secret" holds.

[oldngrumpy]

01:27 AM on 01/27/2011

I'm done with the Dems. They are nothing but cover for the extreme right corporate wing that now owns our country, lock stock and barrel. Nobody is this spineless. Even a jellyfish will sting if you mess with it. Let the f*n revolution begin!!!!!

[VictoriaP]

08:55 AM on 01/27/2011

FAVED, already fanned.

[scott456]

12:35 AM on 01/27/2011

So apparently 1 senator can block the change in rules that would allow a change in the filibuster. Can you say, 'gridlock?'

[serena1313]

01:25 AM on 01/27/2011

Yes.

According to the rules of the Senate: all it takes is 1 Senator to hold up legislation ... worse they are allowed to do so anonymously -- in secret.

So not only does that give 1 Senator exceptional power, it is anathema to democracy ... But that is the Senate.

[KrazyJay]

10:38 PM on 01/26/2011

Honestly, the rule change would have been a better option in 2008 - when they could have used it to steamroll Obama's legislative agenda through without the drawn out affair half-measure it turned out to be. What could that rule accomplish now? The House will never pass a progressive bill, and the Senate could fall to the GOP in two years - giving them the ammo they need to completely kill anything passed in '08 should Obama fail his election bid.

[Mariosright]

12:14 PM on 01/27/2011

Fanned because you got it right. Some posters don't understand the consequences could come back and bite them in the buttif the repubs take over the Senate.

[DR2]

10:38 PM on 01/26/2011

I should have bet money on this outcome. The Democrats are becoming more gutless every day. I can't stomach the Republican's philosophy, but at least they have the guts to fight for what they believe. Too bad we can't get rid of the members on both sides of Congress and start fresh all over again. Maybe we should have a law for a real housecleaning every 10 years or so.

Yeah, I know this is just dreaming and ridiculous, but I am enjoying my rant on our dysfunctional government.

[llozano]

10:02 PM on 01/26/2011

The Democrats show their true colors. They don't want to do away with the current system because it gives them cover for their own shenanigans. The filibuster gave the Dems someone to blame for obstructing legislation that they don't want to pass either. It allows them to play politics and fool the rest of us in to thinking that their is a difference between the parties. When they both get donations fromt the same corporate masters their can't be a difference.

[oldngrumpy]

01:40 AM on 01/27/2011

exactly right on the money. We are skrood to the wall and don't have the sense to know it. fanned

[CA93010]

09:39 PM on 01/26/2011

Well, there you go!
Another 2 years of doing nothing, on the part of the senate, how disgusting.
Reid, Schumer, you're a couple of true wussies and do not deserve to be in leadership positions. You both have bloviated beyond belief. Please, don't ever attempt to feign ignorance as to why the base doesn't get behind your ideas, this is why! You have likened Republicans to being Lucy, and you as Charlie Brown kicking the football, this decision makes you Lucy, and the rest of us are now Charlie Brown!
This is the definitive proof that there needs to be term limits on the entire congress.

[EJavaM07]

09:12 PM on 01/26/2011

I finally figured out why Democrats always loose, even when they have a majority:

It's because, despite the mind-clouding difference in their names (Dem v. Pubs), they play for the same team.

As Bohner said, his only obligation is to the Constitution (as if we believed that), and not to those who elected him.

Taxation without representation is tyranny.

Who represents your tax bracket in Congress?

Oh, that's right, no one!

[Mariosright]

08:36 PM on 01/26/2011

If they are going to keep the filibuster, then they should have to do just that, stand up and talk until you drop.

[goodmarina]

09:03 PM on 01/26/2011

i like the way you think : )

[hannabanana]

11:52 AM on 01/27/2011

That's why a Dem would never filibuster. You need a spine to be able to stand up.

[Mariosright]

12:10 PM on 01/27/2011

Unfortunately, I have to agree with you for the most part. Maybe there may be one or two with backbone.

[Rich Baska]

07:59 PM on 01/26/2011

With Democrats hindered by the "progressives" and their constant cynicism that only serves to suppress otherwise liberal voters, they're smart to NOT make any rule changes.

[CA93010]

09:51 PM on 01/26/2011

Perhaps our cynicism is "because" of crap like this?
What makes our leaderships word on something better than a republicans if this is the same result?
We might be a lot less cynical if they actually talked to us, and told us what was going on. Not spout off with the "we're going to change the rules, all the D Senators signed a letter!" This article says it all. We got the big Pffffffttttt, out of it.
Next time they call for donations, "Love to, but you know, I've been filibustered, and there's a "secret hold" on my check book. Try again later."

[DR2]

10:50 PM on 01/26/2011

Right on! I threw my request for a donation in the trash. Wish I would have caught your "Love to..." earlier to write it on the form and sent it back.

[serena1313]

01:41 AM on 01/27/2011

I agree with you it would be much easier to accept if they were forthcoming about their intentions. When they mislead us it makes it doubly confusing and frustrating to understand; It shatters confidence.

If the democratic caucus leaders had some reasonable explanation for not following through it would be better to say so now, but so far all we can do is presume, rightly or wrongly, the reason. That is not helpful for them or us.

[socialtalker]

04:16 AM on 01/27/2011

Democrats hindered by the "progressi­ves"??? what on earth are you talking about? we have already
seen the results of keeping this present system, it completely weakened or killed any progressive legislation. THAT is what suppressed so many voters.

[socialtalker]

07:52 PM on 01/26/2011

THIS is why i am no longer a democrat. both parties are completely owned by corporations. the demos can continue to claim they cant do anything because repcons wont go for it. so ONLY what the corporations want is going to pass now. if we dont have read campaign finance reform thru a constitutional amendment so the corrupt supreme court can overturn it, then this republic is finished.

[comment from Ron]

07:11 PM on 01/26/2011

This is a prime example of how ineffectual the Democratic Senate is. What do we do - elect immoral Republicans or ineffectual Democrats? I see no other action than to elect Democrats and set the bar down at ground level. That is, we are faced with the sad realization that doing nothing is better than doing something evil. What a shame.

[DR2]

10:53 PM on 01/26/2011

I guess you're right...

[serena1313]

01:43 AM on 01/27/2011

The better option is to start recruiting better Democratic progressives to run for office.