Jefferson Smith, the fictional filibustering senator in Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, has captivated the imaginations of many Americans. But when was the last time a senator took a principled stand in the form of an around-the-clock speech, then collapsed with exhaustion, having convinced the crooked political establishment to mend its misguided ways?
Now is the time to stop looking to a 73-year-old Hollywood movie for inspiration and start fixing the way the Senate does business so that a latter-day Mr. Smith can actually take a stand for genuine matters of principle. There's growing momentum to end legislative obstruction by changing the rules when the new Senate reconvenes later this month. Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) have introduced Senate Resolutions 4 and 6, which mirror the filibuster reforms supported by Fix the Senate Now, a coalition of 50 progressive organizations. And Democrats have the votes to revamp the rules.
If the country is to have any hope of solving our nation's problems, the reformers must succeed. Contrary to the claims of opponents, the reforms would not kill the filibuster. Under this plan there still is room for Mr. Smith. Rather, this plan curbs the misuse and abuse of the filibuster in four key ways.
First, it ends the silent filibuster. Senators wishing to filibuster would have to actually hold the floor and defend their position. Today, senators who want to filibuster can literally "phone it in." They can pick up the phone or send an email to announce that they are engaging in a "filibuster," or simply threatening to do so, and then leave work for the day. With zero time or energy actually expended killing important legislation -- such as fighting gender discrimination in the workplace, closing Big Oil's tax loopholes or giving the children of undocumented immigrants a chance through the DREAM Act -- it's no wonder that an obstructionist minority strikes down anything and everything it doesn't like.
Second, it removes obstacles to debate. The Senate should allow a filibuster only on the bill itself and not on the motions necessary to get a bill to the floor.
Third, instead of requiring the majority to find 60 votes to end a filibuster, the minority would have to produce 41 to keep it going.
Fourth, it would reduce the number of hours of debate before a final vote on nominees for judgeships or executive offices. The Senate minority has given new meaning to the term "obstruction of justice" by filibustering one judicial nominee after another, forcing up to 30 hours of floor time to be squandered even after a supermajority finally breaks a filibuster. At that rate there just aren't enough hours in a president's term to confirm all his nominees. Just the threat of this kind of obstruction can derail a nomination that has broad bipartisan support.
Congress has a constitutional right to make its own rules on the first legislative day of a new session. That means that, on that first day, the Senate can implement these reforms with the support of a simple majority, or 51 votes. Because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid recessed the Senate instead of adjourning it, it's still legislative day one.
The $6-billion November election returned Barack Obama to the White House and ushered in a number of new moderate and progressive voices into the Senate. Why should this expensive, hard-fought victory be deliberately surrendered to a minority led by Mitch McConnell, a man facing a probable challenge from his far right in two years? Most voters who thought they were voting for the president's agenda will be surprised to find the country's policies and problems captive to the politics of a primary race in Kentucky.
To be sure, finding Republicans to support even modest rules changes will be difficult, but we also know that there are some Democrats who have expressed reservations. They worry about interfering with the Senate's traditions and what might happen the next time they are in the minority. But the path we are on is utterly unsustainable. Never-ending dysfunction is not an option. And the blunt truth is that Republicans can change the rules on the first day they're in charge, whether Democrats do anything now or not.
Without reform, we're doomed repeat and amplify the exasperating gridlock of the fiscal cliff and debt ceiling talks. That's why Senate Resolutions 4 and 6 need the support of Democratic senators and the White House. Recent polling shows that the American people strongly support overhauling the filibuster. We hope that they will ask their senators to cosponsor Merkley and Udall's reform packages.
The rules have to change, and now, or those who oppose those reforms will have to own the consequences. And the consequences won't be pretty.
Nan Aron is president of the Alliance for Justice. Larry Cohen is president of the Communications Workers of America.
This blog post is part of a series produced by The Huffington Post that closely examines the most pressing challenges facing President Obama in his second term. To read the companion article by HuffPost's Sam Stein, click here. To read the companion blog post by Sarah Binder of the George Washington University, click here. To read all the other posts in the series, click here.
Follow Nan Aron on Twitter: www.twitter.com/NanAron
Sarah Binder: Prospects for the 113th Congress
Cosmologists explain the behavior of the universe in terms of natural forces, including "dark matter" and "dark energy". Likewise, political affairs are affected by "dark influence". "Dark influence", in simple terms, is defined as, "money which reverses the natural outcome of a local, state or federal election". Theoretically, this may require as little as one vote. Dark influence is a very expensive force; but the political return on investment is extremely high.
Dark influence is a recently observed force not yet acknowledged by some political scientists. It's catastrophically disruptive because it requires very little force to completely reverse the natural outcome of an election. Many present-day elected officials, except for dark influence, would not be elected officials. They are the political equivalent of "antimatter" which cannot mix with "ordinary matter". If mixed, the outcome is the political equivalent of mutual annihilation, i.e., gridlock!
In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question", ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated. In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being. Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes.
Either re-adopt the "move the previous question" rule established by the original Senate, or go back to the "Mr Smith Goes to Washington" rules, and make the Senators stay on the floor of the Senate, and talk it out...
Get up and TALK - actually work for your paycheck and tell the American people why you oppose a piece of legislation.
This applies to both the Dem and the GOP. Not implementing filibuster reform out of fear that you will one day be out of power is self-serving cowardice against national interest, putting your own interest ahead of the country's.
Dear
I am writing to express my support for a change in the filibuster rules. Along with a majority of the American people I believe that any legislator wanting to offer a filibuster should be required to stand in the well or on the floor and deliver his opinions vocally. In accordance with your oath to “serve” I urge you to join the majority of the American people in bringing about this change.
Unfortunately it is very doubtful that this it correct. Each house of congress has the constitutional right to make it own rules, including the right to change them any time it likes. The house of representatives, because the terms of all its members expire at once, considers the first day of each term (not session) to begin with only minimal interim rules and then adopts all it rules on that first day. The senate continues in existence with a quorum of duly elected members remaining in office from one congress to the next. Senate Rule V, explicitly states "The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules." and prohibits changing any rule on the first day of a session by requiring one days notice before a proposed change can be considered. While only a simple majority is required to amend a rule at any time, the motion to amend the rule can be filibustered in the same manner as almost everything else and it takes 60 votes to invoke cloture.
11 POINTS FOR THE MAIN PROCEDURE and 3 APPENDIXES
MAIN PROCEDURE
1. Anyone wanting to filibuster __must __ say the phrase "I am going to filibuster".
2. A "pre-filibuster countdown" clock is started __ time limit 30 minutes.
3. A break is called to allow the following to happen: SEE MORE AT END
4. At the end of 30 minutes __ or __ when the member says "start the clock" a "filibuster countdown" clock starts __ time limit 60 minutes.
5. Member states the number of the bill he has problems with.
6. The member states the problem.
7. Member presents more arguments and presents exhibits
8. At the end of 60 minutes a vote is taken
"this is a (number hour) filibuster vote"
9. 5 members have to vote to __ continue __ the filibuster or it ends
10 __ if __ filibuster continues the clock resets to 60 minutes
11. Second vote __ requires __ 10 members to __ continue
Third = 15 forth = 20, 5 th = 25, 6 th = 30, 7th = 35 etc
END MAIN PROCEDURE
==================================
MORE AT:
https://www.facebook.com/notes/steven-belsky/filibuster-reform-version-5/10151210338712864