Senate's Returning Democrats Unanimously Favor Filibuster Reform

[stevedeshazer]

All except Dodd sign a letter urging Majority Leader Harry Reid to change the rules.

By Dan Friedman
Wednesday, December 22, 2010 | 3:12 p.m.

All Democratic senators returning next year have signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., urging him to consider action to change long-sacrosanct filibuster rules.

The letter, delivered this week, expresses general frustration with what Democrats consider unprecedented obstruction and asks Reid to take steps to end those abuses. While it does not urge a specific solution, Democrats said it demonstrates increased backing in the majority for a proposal, championed by Sen. Tom Udall, D-N.M., and others, to weaken the minority’s ability to tie the Senate calendar into parliamentary knots.

Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it.

“There need to be changes to the rules to allow filibusters to be conducted by people who actually want to block legislation instead of people being able to quietly say ‘I object’ and go home,” said Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo.

more at link: http://nationaljournal.com/congress/senate-s-returning-democrats-unanimously-favor-filibuster-reform-20101222

[somone]

1. Now, why didn't they do that like a year ago?

We know the answer

[treestar]

3. Two years ago

They can only do it at the beginning of a new Congress.

And hindsight is 20/20

[snot]

18. +1

[no limit]

2. Yeah, now that republicans control the legislative agenda that makes perfect sense

Afterall that is the job of the democrats, isn't it? To make it as easy for republicans to control everything while pretending that they are opposed.

[johnaries]

4. Dems still control the Senate. nt

[no limit]

5. I never said otherwise. I said: now republicans control the legislative agenda

with control of the house that is absolutely true. And now if they change the filibuster it will be easier to move a republican agenda through the senate.

[The Doctor.]

7. That's been my take...

for the most part.

[The Northerner]

6. How many votes are needed for a filibuster reform?

[no limit]

8. From what I gather just 51

I know you are going to ask why they didn't do it sooner. I can't answer that, maybe Reid can.

[Tx4obama]

13. When rules are changed (other than on the 1st day of a new session) 67 votes are needed.

A new congressional session begins only every two years.
The first day of the new session is the 'only' time that new rules can be changed with a simple 51 majority vote, any other time 2/3 of the senate is required.
So, if we don't do it January 5th when the Senate returns, it most likely won't get done in the next two year.

[no limit]

15. I fully understand that. So why didn't they do it 2 years ago?

[Tx4obama]

16. Probably because

Probably because the dems didn't know at that time that the republicans were going to filibuster 99% of the bills and the majority of Obama's judicial and administration appointments.

[Silent3]

9. A simple majority...

...so long as it's done at the start of the new session.

[Tx4obama]

10. If they vote for filiburster reform (change of rules) on January 5th, only 51 votes

and the change of the rules vote can NOT be filibustered.
The vote for the change will be the 1st vote of the session, as the rules for the new congressional session are being agreed upon.

[The Northerner]

11. So, if filibuster reforms are enacted will it still require 60 votes for a bill's passage?

[Tx4obama]

12. Well the article above says...

" ... Among the chief revisions that Democrats say will likely be offered: Senators could not initiate a filibuster of a bill before it reaches the floor unless they first muster 40 votes for it, and they would have to remain on the floor to sustain it. That is a change from current rules, which require the majority leader to file a cloture motion to overcome an anonymous objection to a motion to proceed, and then wait 30 hours for a vote on it."

So, it looks like they might leave the number at 60 for 'cloture' and 51 for the final vote. But I read that they want to whittle down the 30 hours of debate time down.

The filibuster reform does not get rid of the filibuster completely, it would just tweaks the rules.

----
December 17, 2010

Bipartisan Support Building Around Three Changes To Senate Rules In New Congress

Excerpt:

"This is a two-step process," Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), one of the leaders of the effort, told The Huffington Post in an interview after the caucus meeting. "The first step is that we need to recognize that under the Constitution, we can...adopt rules with 51 votes and also cut off debate on rules that we want to adopt with 51 votes. ... The second step is building the consensus with 51 senators on what they want to actually be in the rules. ... And that's the tough business we're in right now."

According to Udall, bipartisan support is beginning to build around three proposals: 1) No longer allowing senators to filibuster the motion to proceed and instead allow a set amount of time for debate, 2) ending secret holds, and 3) stopping filibustering senators from hiding behind quorum calls and forcing them to speak up if they're blocking a bill.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/17/changes-senate-rules-filibuster-transparency_n_798523.html

[Tx4obama]

14. Btw....

The filibuster rule was changed once other time (that I know of) back in the 1970s, it used to take 67 votes to break a filibuster before they changed it to 60.

[stevedeshazer]

17. Thanks for all that information!

:)