Today really kicks off debate on the financial reform bill, and we’ve already had some major news. First, Majority Leader Harry Reid staked out his clear position on amendments to the bill, saying that he would like to see simple majority thresholds for all amendments. Here’s a rush transcript of that, from the floor:
BY THE TIME THIS GETS OFF THE FLOOR, IT WILL — WE WILL HAVE SHOWN THAT IT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT MAJORITY OF SENATORS VOTING FOR THIS. I HOPE THAT IS THE CASE. I WOULD HOPE ALSO THAT WE DON’T GET LOCKED INTO SOMETHING THAT APPEARS TO BE THE ORDER OF THE CONGRESS AROUND HERE THAT EVERYTHING HAS TO HAVE 60 VOTES. ON OUR SIDE WE’RE WILLING — I CAN’T SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, BUT I THINK I’M GOING TO CERTAINLY — I’M MORE WITHIN MY POWER TO TELL MY SENATORS, LET’S JUST HAVE A 50-VOTE MARGIN. WHY DO WE NEED TO HAVE 60 VOTES ON EVERYTHING WE DO AROUND HERE?
This contrasts with the health care debate, where by bipartisan agreement 60 votes were automatically required for all amendments.
It’s not entirely up to Reid to do this. Like any filibuster, it really takes one Senator to deny unanimous consent and force a cloture vote on the amendment. Bob Corker said today that would probably be the standard for any “controversial” amendments.
Still, Corker said that the changes Democrats want to make to the bill would still require 60 votes, giving the GOP some leverage in the debate going forward.
“In the Senate, one senator can cause there to be a 60-person vote,” Corker said. “Anything that’s controversial or meaningful will probably require a 60-vote threshold.”
I suppose it’s progress that the Democrats appear united on simple majorities for amendments, but Republicans are likely to use this tactic to gain leverage, as Corker says.
This doesn’t doom every amendment, but probably hurts the ability to pass many of them. The Brown-Kaufman Safe Banking Act, which would limit bank size and leverage, did pick up an important supporter today, however. After a colloquy on the Senate floor between Sherrod Brown and Ted Kaufman, Assistant Majority Leader Dick Durbin called the measure “clearly a game changer. I am supporting this amendment, although my friends in the banking industry won’t like it… I commend [Sens. Brown and Kaufman] on their leadership.
In his remarks, Kaufman spoke directly to Republicans, saying that he saw “common cause here on the other side of the aisle,” noting that small businesses and small banks get hurt by the mega-banks. The bill would only scale back Citigroup and Goldman Sachs to the size they were around 2003, before the explosion in derivative trading and the massive conglomeration of the finance sector. “We have to pass laws. Not go back to the regulators who didn’t serve us well. We have to pass laws,” Kaufman said.
Other major votes to strengthen the bill include the Merkley-Levin amendment to ban proprietary trading, the Cantwell-McCain amendment to reinstate Glass-Steagall, the Reed amendment to make the Consumer Financial Protection Agency independent, and the Sanders amendment to audit the Federal Reserve. Voting on amendments should begin today.




1 Comment

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
Great news from Majority Leader Reid (for which I give much of the credit to bill manager Chris Dodd).
Like any threatened filibuster (or mere objection), you mean, of course, thanks to the way that the Senate is now operated by both Parties. [But even so, "one Senator" cannot "force a cloture vote" on anything - that requires 16 members of the majority to first file a cloture motion.]
Importantly, “unanimous consent” is not required in the normal course of amending a bill on the floor by simple-majority vote.
Under regular order, unanimous consent mostly comes into play if there’s a pending amendment that a Senator wants to set aside in order to call up an amendment of their own. [That's the posture of the legislation going into today, with a simple Barbara Boxer amendment supported/offered by Dodd being the first, and pending, amendment on this legislation.]
Another way that denial of unanimous consent can now interfere with orderly simple-majority amending, because of the way the Senate is now operated, is when someone tries to pre-schedule a time for a vote by uanimous consent, something that is now apparently holding up the vote on the (non-controversial) Boxer amendment. Dodd wanted to ask unanimous consent for a vote on it at about 2:15 p.m. today, but wouldn’t do so without a Republican on the floor to object (or not), so they went into the Party conference lunches at 12:30 p.m. without a schedule for that vote, despite Barbara Boxer’s impatience.
How to avoid such unnecessary hold-ups? STOP WITH THE FAKE QUORUM CALLS, during this debate (that’s a power of the majority Party through its operation of the Chair). Because: If there’s not a quorum call on, or debate ongoing, it is the duty of the Presiding Officer to put the pending question (in this case, on the Boxer amendment).
Once the pending Boxer amendment receives a vote (thereby ceasing to be the pending question), the next Senator to call up their filed first-degree amendment gets the next shot at debate and a vote – no unanimous consent required – and on, in sequence, amendment by amendment.
But if Dodd and Company insist on first getting unanimous consent to pre-schedule voting times on each amendment, the whole process is sent into backroom bog-down land. Instead they should let the debate run, as freely as possible, and Senators ready to call up and debate their amendments should do so, in an orderly fashion, ask for the yeas and nays (so that every Senator will have a chance to get to the floor for the roll-call vote), and then not note the absence of a quorum. If the absence of a quorum is noted by someone trying to prevent the vote proceeding without voicing their opposition in debate, it should be a real quorum call, requiring a majority of Senators to show up and announce their presence (after which further debate and/or the vote on the then-pending amendment can proceed).
Let the Senate be the Senate for a change, with attendance/attention required while “debate and amendment” is underway.