Harry Reid just spoke on the Senate floor with the final deal on rules changes in the 112th Congress. David Waldman gave an outline of this earlier this morning, but now we know precisely what will get a vote, and what will pass, under the agreement.
• Eliminating secret holds: This includes allowing Senators to “roll” their secret hold onto other colleagues. Once again, the problem isn’t the secrecy but the hold. Holds aren’t going anywhere, and they can only be surmounted with a cloture vote, and all the rules around cloture votes remain, so secret or not, there’s plenty of incentive for the minority party to use holds and trigger a process that forces weeks of floor time to dispense with the objection of sometimes just one Senator.
• Eliminating reading of amendments: Anything that has been submitted for 72 hours and is publicly available doesn’t have to be read on the floor. As I’ve said, this has been used precisely once in my recent memory – by Tom Coburn, on Bernie Sanders’ single-payer amendment in the health care bill. It’s been threatened a couple times, but even this has been a bridge too far for the obstructionists, for the most part. It’s I guess good to see it go away, but it really does almost nothing in terms of the workings of the Senate.
• Exempting nominations: According to a Senate leadership aide, this would exempt 1/3 of all nominations from the Senate confirmation process, which is more than what’s been discussed previously. However, we won’t know which nominations will be exempted now. This will come at a future date based on an agreement from leaders in both parties.
In addition, there was a colloquy entered into the record, a “gentleman’s agreement” where Mitch McConnell agreed to “reduce” the filibuster on the motion to proceed, and Reid agreed to “reduce” filling the amendment tree to block amendments from the minority party. This preserves the 60-vote Senate, as it still allows for the filibuster to end debate on legislation. It’s also pretty meaningless, as it’s a handshake agreement with no binding force. And “reduce” is a weasel word that either side can break at their leisure.
Sen. Reid thanked his colleagues in the GOP for coming to this agreement. He also said the Senate “runs on a fuel made of comity and trust” in his speech on the floor, and that the chamber has “the ability to debate and to deliberate without the restraints of time limits.” He said that’s encoded into the Senate DNA. I watch far too much C-SPAN, and I can tell you pretty clearly that I’ve seen almost no debate or deliberation in the United States Senate. The “encoding” in the DNA is a nonsensical statement of exceptionalism that merely invites obstruction. Make no mistake – the Senate, and all its members, are getting precisely what they deserve. Any future whining about how difficult it is to break a filibuster will go in one ear and out the other. They had their chance to fix this, and they punted. I don’t believe Republicans will be as generous.
Reid closed with this:
Senator McConnell and I both believe our reverance for this institution must always be more important than our respective political parties. As part of this compromise, we’ve agreed that I won’t force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate. That is the so-called Constitutional option. And he won’t in the future.
Good luck with that one.
UPDATE: I didn’t add here that, as I reported yesterday, there will be votes on the broader rules reform package articulated by Sens. Harkin, Merkley and Udall. There are likely to be individual votes on all the elements of their package not contained in this deal. They’ll all need 67 votes and it’ll be interesting to see how many they end up with, but in the end what you see above is what you’ll get.
…Ezra says: “Both parties are more committed to being able to obstruct than they are to being able to govern.” Well, I can’t wait to see what happens when McConnell has the majority and a Republican President.
UPDATE II: Genius:
“It is a handshake agreement,” the Democratic aide said. “At the end of the day, I anticipate that it will be violated. But as with anything else with politicians, they don’t want to come off as hypocrites. And we can now point back to this agreement.”
Yeah, one thing we never see in Washington is hypocrisy. Good show.




27 Comments

Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
This is just silly, and you are right about Reid and the Senate DNA nonsense. It’s just PR nonsense which no one believes.
Big hand giveth, little hand taketh away. Same as it ever was
I really wish FDL would stop putting up pictures of that disgusting pervert McConnell. Every time I see his face I want to retch my guts out.
Is it possible that McConnell or his minions have even the slightest clue what a large-type dipshit he is?
Govern? Majority vote? That’s for the little people. We don’t do that in this gentlemen’s Senate Club.
Are you sure Udall’s going to get a vote on his proposal? It sounded to me like they weren’t going to allow that.
I should also add that the change in confirmation procedures is subject to a vote in the House, so who knows if it will actually happen.
Me too. His face really gives a perverse effect on my digestive system AND my mood.
This is how the Money keeps control. The house is irrelevant. For $10 Million one can buy the whole Senate. The only difficulty is how to figure out the spin to enable the legislation one wants.
Oh Harry, you imbecile. McConnell is a LIAR like ALL Republicans, tbaggers, libertarians. You remind me of a certain president…
Beyond disappointment. Beyond caring.
Will never have to care when one or more Democratic Senators complain about how if only the rules were different more Democratic legislation would be passed. They could have been.
They chose not to make them different so things could get passed.
Decisions, like elections, have consequences. The consequence for me is to abandon them as they’ve abandoned US (time and time and time and time again).
As I understand it there will be a vote, with a 67-vote threshold.
Of course they are going to vote on Udall’s proposals. You see now that it will take 67 votes to change things, all those Democrats who said they wanted filibuster reform but really didn’t want it can vote for it, making them look good to progressives, while knowing it’s just theater.
But Harry protected them by not using the constitutional option. That way their vote would have mattered. Then they would have been in trouble. Either they vote for something that their corporate sponsors don’t want and make the people happy. Or they have to vote the way their real bosses tell them and reveal themselves to the people as the corporate toadies they actually are.
Harry didn’t have the cojones to put any dipshit Democrat in that position. He’s didn’t have the force of will to say, “We are going to vote on this for the good of the country and we’re going to have a majority rules constitutional option, and I dare you to vote against it.” Instead when they told him in private they couldn’t really vote for it he just said, “and do you want butter topping on that?”
The US Senate: still broken, and loving every minute of it.
I really do not understand the 67 vote thing. Since ending filibuster only requires 60 and I thought a change in rules only required a majoarity, what is this about? Or am I confusted about the rules changes?
Senator McConnell gives himself high marks as a negotiator, and I think he’s right about that. Who needs a Majority Leader when the minority party can control everything?
You rule, Dems!
Act one: scene one seems to have gone off without a hitch. Director Reid is really starting the show this year with a an even more congenial tone than last year.
On the first day of the new congress, rules can be changed with a simple majority. However, after the first day, it requires 67 votes to make changes to the rules.
Ezra is right on the money for once. Of course, it doesn’t take a genius to figure this out. All you have to do is figure out what’s in individual Senators’ best interest. That they are still able to obstruct the process as individuals is in their best interests, hence the rules will largely stay as they are.
So the Frog and the Scorpion will now shake hands before heading across the river.
Any change in the rules is meaningless in a divided congress. With the exception of judicial nominations, the senate will need to take a long vacation, because they shouldn’t vote on any crap bill coming out of the R House. As for judicial appointments, if they are held up, let PBO do them as recess appointments. The power in these two years must shift to the executive branch for better or worse.
Mitch: “It’s my nature.”
Would that be because the Senate agrees to adopt rules at the beginning of each session, and almost inevitably adopts the rules it functioned under last session? That’s the best summary I’ve been able to come up with, given what I’ve read.
That’s because you’re only being given half the story.
There hasn’t been a debating filibuster in the Senate in almost twenty years. So why all the concern about “ending” them?
What takes “60 votes” or “67 votes” is passage of an optional cloture motion filed by….the majority Democrats (at the moment). [Cloture motions were designed and intended to bring ongoing, debating filibusters to a predictable end.]
No Democratic cloture motion, no “60″ votes needed (for passage of legislation or nominations), no “67″ votes needed (for passage of rule changes). Simple-majority regular order obtains instead.
Next Question: Then why the hell do the Democrats keep filing voluntary supermajority cloture motions?
Short Answer: In large part because, in the modern Senate, the majority and minority Parties are both desperate to prevent the Senate Chamber from going “live” again (out of tight Party leadership control from the backrooms), in place of the suspended Chamber (via make-believe quorum call) that we have today. A suspended Chamber which – at the sole direction of the Senate Majority Leader – prevents the Presiding Officer from putting the pending question to a simple-majority vote of the Senate unless actual floor debate (like an actual filibuster) is ongoing.
Longer Answer:
(Debating) Filibuster vs. (Optional) Cloture: The Self-Inflicted Catch-22 in Senate Rule XXII
[But remember to keep it to yourself - the Party leadership might get mad...]
On the contrary. On any day that the Senate is in session, given one day’s notice, the Senate may change its rules by simple-majority vote. Meaning that the Senate’s rules provide that on pretty much every day but the first day of a new Congress, the Senate can change its rules by simple-majority vote, provided it is able to wait out any debating filibuster that materializes.
The opening paragraph, on Page 1217 [PDF Page 1 of 12], of the “Rules” PDF of Riddick’s Senate Procedure:
Just pondering this for a minute, seems that an increase in power has a stupefying effect on those who receive it(dems). If only they had the savvy the WS Thieves had. Perhaps politics works more like war then diplomacy. I think progressives need to read the art of war along with the constitution (in that order). I think our President is more a fighter then a martyr. I know people are pissed at him, but I can’t blame him, only so much he can really do without his parties support. Makes more sense to live and fight another day. I think he made the BS tax deal to avoid further hurting Americans. Better for him to run in 2012 then the lineup of drones that will be the republican ticket.
But then that’s just me. 8^
Now I have to duck the fireballs I guess.