Can someone versed in Senate rules please explain why Bunning alone can continuously block

[saracat]

Bill passage without anything being done at all by the Democrats?Or is something being done? Can it? He doesn't seem to be filibustering.What is he doing and why can't it be stopped? If he is going to filibuster, why doesn't he do it and be done with it? What is going on? Anybody know?????????

[ThomWV]

1. He - and those who support him - will only Fillibuster if Harry demands they do, and Harry hasn't.

[saracat]

2. ?????? What are you saying?? I am talking about Bunning filibustering.

Are you saying Harry has to demand Bunning filibuster?? Why? I am confused? Or are you saying Bunning could only filibuster if harry pulled the plug and called his bluff?

[11 Bravo]

16. It's not a filibuster. Reid asked for unanimous consent, and Bunning objected.

Unanimous means just that. Just another way the US Senate does "the people's business".

[arcane1]

3. I would like to know this as well

I am not at all familiar with how this works :(

[Travis_0004]

5. A bill normally must go through a committie.

When a bill passes the house, its usually referred to a committee.

There are rules that allow the senate to bypass the committee, but only with unanimous consent.

So, the senate is trying to bypass the committee, and pass this bill quickly, but since Bunning is objecting, it must go through a committee, which would take at least a week, so he is delaying the bill, but once it goes through a committee, then it just requires a majority to pass it. So Bunning is not defeating this bill, only delaying it.

[BeFree]

11. Grandstanding

And making a fool of himself.

What does he care? He's got money, food and health care.

[havocmom]

14. Perhaps he will have all those unemployed, and soon hungry, people over for dinner

:evilgrin:

Frankly, I figure when someone is a dick as a matter of policy, they need to shoulder some of the consequences of their actions when it harms so many others. Why should the dicks not be inconvenienced a bit too?


edited for a smile repair

[Igel]

19. Thank you.

On the other hand, committees can also be fast.

On edit: Wouldn't this have applied to the HCR manager's bill they were supposed to have been working on over Xmas recess?

[onenote]

4. here you go

To fully understand the situation you have to go back to last December. At that time, long term extensions of several expriring laws were going to be folded into a year-end appropriations bill. However, because of some disputes over the language of certain provisions, the decision was made to include only a simple 60 day extension of the various exprining provisions. The hope was that a vehicle could be found for passing the longer term extensions before Feb 28. However, by the time Congress came back from the end of year recess and with Presidents Day and various snowstorms, the number of actual days during which the Senate planned to hold votes was pretty limited. At one point, it looked like the extenders would be put in a comprehensive jobs bill. But that bill also got pared down to a more limited jobs bill, which was passed. The fallback plan was to put the long term extensions in a second jobs package, but because it seemed doubtful that the second jobs bill could be enacted prior to Feb 28, the decision was made to "hotline" a simple 30 day further extension of the expiring provisions. That would maintain the status quo while a longer debate took place on jobs bill number 2 (and the associated long term extension provisions). Reid and McConnell reportedly had worked out this plan and there was an understanding that there would be unanimous consent to the hotline process -- which allows immediate consideration of a bill without committee referral and without needing to go through cloture, which takes several days. But then Bunning happened. He objected (and continues to object) whenever unanimous consent is sought to the stop gap short term extension.

There is a way around Bunning: take the short term bill, file for cloture and then bring it up later in the week. But that really doesn't make sense if you can take jobs bill 2, file for cloture on it, and bring it up and kill two birds with one stone--get the long term extensions and the other jobs related provisions all at once.

So while theoretically, Reid could seek to push through the short term extension bill through via cloture, he can get more in roughly the same amount of time by scrapping the short term extension and going for the whole package. If it works its a great strategy since the repubs, who might otherwise have been able to stall or force changes to the long term extensions and/or other provisions in the jobs bill, will have a difficult time doing so if it means that benefits continue to be cut off.

Again, this is my understanding based on conversations with folks on the Hill (I'm following the extension of the satellite legislation which is tied up in this process and that's why I've been trying to stay on top of it -- but to be honest, its hard to find any single person with a clear understanding of exactly what the plan was, is or will be).

[saracat]

8. But in the meantime people go hungry and die.Thank you for this

detailed answer.it explains a lot. neither side looks good here.of course Bunning is an ass but he is being added and abetted.

[onenote]

12. again, the understanding was that the UC would go through Thursday

and none of the expiring provisions would expire. Bunning fucked that up. At that point, Reid had a couple of choices (i) try to maintain pressure on Bunning to relent, so the short term fix could be made with the least amount of disruption; (ii) file for cloture on the short term extenders bill and get it passed later this week; (iii) file for cloture on the jobs bill with the long term extenders (modified to apply retroactively) and get it passed in about the same amount of time it would take to get the short term extenders passed.

Reid, as I understand it, has decided to play out options 1 and 3. He's still pushing to force Bunning to relent, but knowing that is unlikely, he's going to scrap the short term bill and go for the larger bill.

I know this is going to sound harsh to some, but for all those claiming Reid doesn't know what he's doing, I think this time he may have played a win win card. If the short term extender had been approved last week, the door would be open for the repubs to fight over the larger jobs bill and the long term extenders); they might well have been able to force another short term extesion and prevent other important measures from being passed. And that is undoubtedly why McConnell agreed to the UC to hotline the shortterm extension at the end of the month -- to maximize the repubs leverage on the bigger bill. Bunning royally screwed that up.

The harsh part? Maybe by going the cloture route on the bigger bill rather than the short term bill will mean benefits are cut off a couple of days more than would otherwise be the case. I hope not, but I suspect that may be a possibility. But the repubs have the burden now because the expiration is at their feet and if they delay the bill that would extend them, not many people are going to care whether the bill they are delaying is a 30 day extension or long term extension or that it contains other measures. So the ulimate goal -- long term extension and other jobs provisions -- is accomplished more quickly than would otherwise be the case.

As for people dying, I don't want to sound callous, but the original strategy (and if BUnning relents, the current strategy) would keep the number of days during which UI benefits were cut off to one or two and I don't think a lot of folks are dying because of that. I certainly haven't seen anything to suggest that will be the case. Obviously , the longer the delay in resuming benefits, the greater the risk. But a couple of additional days in exchange for getting an extension that will run through the rest of the year (not just through the end of March) and that will contain other beneficial job creating provisions might be a trade off that ultimately is more beneficial.

[saracat]

15. I understand your POV but the more time passes, the more people will

die.It could be argued that they would have died anyway, particularly if nothing were done. but the point is the legislative haranguing benefits no one. Maybe it will be a WIN for the Dems, and maybe there is really is no choice, but it still seems as if a quick fix is always available to the corporations and not the people,it also seems the GOP are much better at both obstructing and getting their agenda passed. I can recall no instance when a Democrat did what Bunning has done to prevent GOP passage of a Bill, can you?

[blueworld]

6. He is basically holding up a "motion to proceed", preventing the scheduling of a vote

http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:_KSlfZy6UwkJ:www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm+senate+hold+rules&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Scheduling Legislative Business
>snip

The Senate accords its majority leader prime responsibility for scheduling. He may carry out this responsibility by moving that the Senate proceed to consider a particular matter. By precedent, he and the minority leader are recognized preferentially, and by custom only he (or his designee) makes motions or requests affecting when the Senate will meet and what it will consider.

For executive business, this motion to proceed may be offered in a nondebatable form, but for legislative business it usually is debatable. Whenever possible, therefore, the majority leader instead calls up bills and resolutions by unanimous consent. If Senators object to unanimous consent to take up a measure, they are implicitly threatening to filibuster a motion to consider it. They may do so because they oppose that measure, or in the hope of influencing action on some other matter.

Senators can even place a "hold" on a measure or nomination, although this practice is not recognized in Senate rules. "Holds" are requests by Senators to their party's floor leader to object on their behalf to any request to consider a matter, at least until they have been consulted. The majority leader will usually not even request consent to consider a measure if there is a hold on it.

[saracat]

9. Thank you. I appreciate this. Still it seems that our nation is in a

state of emergency and action needs to b e taken.Immediately.Haggle later.Funny how money is gotten to banks and industry without haggling but unemployment and Cobra for the citizens is held up or denied.

[blueworld]

18. Odd, but I was thinking the same thing

And in view of his past votes, I've been trying to figure out what his "secret agenda" is. He isn't running again, so it can't be theoretical fiscal conservatism. Is he trying to screw the Republicans because they begged him to retire? I can't figure it out & will be happy to hear from more politically savvy DUers. In the meantime, he obviously has absolutely NO CONCERN for the human beings he's seriously hurting with his ego trip. Disgusting.

[gimama]

7. #5 & 6..thanks!

..for the edumacation!(& Welcome to DU!)

& Saracat, thanks for asking! :hi:

[saracat]

10. Why on earth would anyone unrec a request for information on Senate rules?

[11 Bravo]

17. Because they are miserable little shitstains clamoring for relevance?

[TheCowsCameHome]

13. One man wields power like that? That is obscene.

No one person should ever have that kind of authority.

I don't care which party he belongs to.