Harkin Calls For More Rule Changes

[Purveyor]

After the Senate voted to change filibuster rules Thursday, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) called for more reforms.

“This has been escalating for a long period of time and it was time to stop it and that’s what we did this morning,” Harkin said. “Now we need to take it a step farther and change the filibuster rules on legislation.”

--CLIP
Harkin said it was a “good day” for the Senate and called for more reforms.

“I predict the sky will not fall ... but I do predict that our government will work better,” Harkin said.

Harkin said he’d support further rule changes that would prevent a single senator from blocking legislation and protect minority rights by allowing for germane amendment votes.
Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.) and Tom Udall (D-N.M.) have also proposed that senators only be allowed to filibuster if they’re willing to hold the floor — a talking filibuster.

MORE...

http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-action/senate/191086-harkin-calls-for-more-rule-changes

[Laelth]

1. Hear, hear!

I think the filibuster should have been completely eliminated, and not just limited as the Senate chose to do yesterday. I applaud Senator Harkin's efforts to further liberate and empower the Senate.

The Senate (by its very nature) has been a thorn in the side of progress in this nation for as long as we have had our current government (since 1787). Weakening the capacity for small-population states to obstruct progress in the Senate will be a major benefit to us all.

-Laelth

[kentuck]

2. Democrats should keep that ace in the hole.

And keep reminding people that the filibuster reform did not apply to legislation or to Supreme Court judges.

[n2doc]

3. So long as the R's hold the House hostage there is no real point in going further

I guess if the Senate wants to pass a bunch of bills that won't even be discussed in the house, then go ahead. But they have done that already (pass bills that haven't been considered).

[kentuck]

4. True but...

They can now approve the President's nominations and they still have executive orders. But the Democrats need to take back the House to make real progress.

[CTyankee]

7. But here's another way to think about it: the Dems in the SEnate have at least broken the gridlock

there. And we know from polls that voters want to see government work. Well, now they are seeing that one party, the Democratic Party, has taken a first step towards getting government to work again. Of course, comity and cooperation would be the ideal, but at least they got this. OTOH, the Republicans are whining and pissing about not being able to obstruct progress any more.

It seems to me that the Dems will now be seen by voters as the party that gets things done. And that can have a huge positive effect on the next two elections. This might be a first step to getting the House back...

[kentuck]

8. I agree.

I think that will be the result of this vote.

[CTyankee]

13. I think some of the repubs actually came to the same conclusion...

which is why they are having fits and spells now. Once they thought this thing through, I can just hear some of the saying OMFG!

[bvar22]

5. NOw...end the Secret Hold rule.

Secrecy and Democracy can not co-exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold

[riqster]

12. ^^^This^^^ nt

[Tx4obama]

14. 2011: Senate ends practice of secret holds (vote 92-4)

Old DU OP here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php/http:/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4713055

[bvar22]

15. Not really.

On January 27, 2011, the Senate voted 92–4 to pass a resolution that would require any hold to be entered into the Congressional Record two days after it is placed, unless the hold is lifted within the two-day period. If the Senator that placed the hold does not come forward or remove the hold within the two-day period, the hold will be attributed to the party leader, or the Senator that placed the hold on behalf of the "secret" Senator.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Senate_hold

Washington, D.C. — Today, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) calling on them, as part of upcoming Senate rules reform, to provide the Senate Select Committee on Ethics with the jurisdiction to investigate and discipline senators who violate the prohibition on secret holds. In December 2009, CREW asked the committee to discipline senators who violated the ban on secret holds and issue guidance to inform senators about the consequences of placing secret holds. In response, the ethics committee explained violations of Senate parliamentary procedure are “outside the limited jurisdiction of the Committee.”

The Honest Leadership and Open Government Act of 2007 requires senators to reveal when they are “intending to object to a proceeding,” commonly referred to as placing a hold on a nomination or a bill. Despite the adoption of additional rules to curb the “secret” aspect of the holds process in 2011, CREW’s research shows senators continue to use secret holds with impunity.

http://www.citizensforethics.org/legal-filings/entry/senate-reid-mcconnell-enforce-rules-secret-hold

Just like the great "Wall Street Reforms",
rules without oversight, enforcement, and penalties are no rules at all.


So much Window Dressing , Kabuki Theater, and shiny objects to distract the peasants,
so little "real change".




You will know them by their [font size=3]WORKS,[/font]
not by their rhetoric or promises.

[Tx4obama]

16. From your second link...

-snip-

To determine whether senators have complied with the ban, CREW reviewed the Senate Calendar of Business from December 1, 2009 to January 1, 2013, and found only 20 instances of a “notice of intent to object” placed in the calendar — over half of which were entered by the two senators who have worked to eliminate secret holds, Sens. Charles Grassley (R-IA) and Ron Wyden (D-OR). Meanwhile, CREW easily identified more than a dozen bills and nominations that appear to have had secret holds placed on them, but for which no objections were placed in the Senate Calendar of Business. These examples include nominations for positions at critical agencies including the Treasury Department and the Office of Violence Against Women and even the nomination of Robert Ford to become ambassador to Syria. Secret holds have also held up aid to earthquake-stricken Haiti, funds to reimburse local police departments for buying bulletproof vests, and the Whistleblower Protection Enhancement Act.

-snip-

Wonder how many of those were 'after' the 2011 vote - also the resolution did not take affect until January 3, 2012

So only the year 2012 would count - and they do not say how many in their review were in 2012.

[pa28]

6. Yes! If they want to filibuster make them stand up and talk.

They've got Ted Cruz now so it should be no problem.

[MatthewStLouis]

10. Totally agree!

The secret hold is spineless, lazy, and aristocratic. Make them stand up and explain themselves!

[DirtyDawg]

9. There's a...

...simple solution to the concern that when, and if, Democrats once again become the minority party in the Senate - don't lose any more damn elections to these bastards. And given the demographic trends and the public positions on so many critical issues, I frankly don't see that being a problem. Sure they can gerrymander the hell out of a district(s), but entire states are a bit more difficult. I'll take my chances if it means a chance to get some more progressives in the judiciary and, hopefully, some more progressive legislation.

[frylock]

11. word up

[butterfly77]

17. K&R!

[musiclawyer]

18. I agree that this helps with 2014

By then I would hope a narrating emerges within the DCC that government can function only with democrats in charge. As the GOP has repeatedly demonstrated it does not seek elective office to govern, rather simply to serve the 1% and the anti-woman, voter supressing radical right