Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. (Photo: Talk Radio News Service / Flickr)Reformers frustrated by gridlock in the Senate are hoping to see changes made to filibuster rules Friday when lawmakers can overhaul procedural rules on the first day of the new Congress.
Two major proposals are currently on the table, but Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) is now expected to use a technical procedure that could delay a vote on new filibuster rules until as late as January 22, according to published reports.
Frustrated by frequent use of the filibuster by Republicans, Reid had threatened to use the so-called “nuclear option” and change filibuster rules with a simple majority vote rather a supermajority; but it appears the majority leader wants more time to negotiate with Republicans and may want to avoid setting a precedent that could cause trouble for future Democrats if they become the Senate minority.
Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) notes in a recent op-ed that Reid has faced 386 filibusters in the past six years and it is “amazing” that any legislation has passed the Senate. Merkley, along with Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) and other Democrats have proposed rule changes that would limit the number of filibusters in the Senate and replace the “silent filibuster” with the “talking filibuster.”
Many Americans are familiar with “talking filibusters”: A lawmaker blocks legislation by extending debate and may take the floor to continue the debate for long periods of time if necessary. At least 60 Senators must vote to end a filibuster.
Under current rules, lawmakers can simply use the “silent filibuster” to keep debate open without taking the floor.
“It puts you on record before your colleagues, and it puts you on record with the American people,” Merkley said of the “talking filibuster” in a recent video statement.
Last week, Michigan Democrat Sen. Carl Levin joined Republican Sen. John McCain and others in introducing a counterproposal. The Levin-McCain proposal may enjoy bipartisan support, but reformers say it is as weaker than the Merkley’s.
The Levin-McCain proposal would block filibusters on proceeding to debate and would guarantee that the minority party could introduce at least two amendments on the floor. The proposal would not make the “talking filibuster” a requirement, but instead asks party leaders not to honor filibuster threats unless a lawmaker will actively take the floor to debate.
The proposal quickly came under fire from a coalition of progressive groups that said “thanks, but no thanks” to McCain and Levin.
“The Levin-McCain proposal would do far too little to restore functionality to the Senate,” said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice. “We have seen over the past two years that handshake agreements cannot curb abuse of the rules.”
A recent poll by Public Policy Polling shows that 70 percent of Americans in 10 states say lawmakers should use the “talking filibuster.”
Truthout Is Preparing to Meet Trump’s Agenda With Resistance at Every Turn
Dear Truthout Community,
If you feel rage, despondency, confusion and deep fear today, you are not alone. We’re feeling it too. We are heartsick. Facing down Trump’s fascist agenda, we are desperately worried about the most vulnerable people among us, including our loved ones and everyone in the Truthout community, and our minds are racing a million miles a minute to try to map out all that needs to be done.
We must give ourselves space to grieve and feel our fear, feel our rage, and keep in the forefront of our mind the stark truth that millions of real human lives are on the line. And simultaneously, we’ve got to get to work, take stock of our resources, and prepare to throw ourselves full force into the movement.
Journalism is a linchpin of that movement. Even as we are reeling, we’re summoning up all the energy we can to face down what’s coming, because we know that one of the sharpest weapons against fascism is publishing the truth.
There are many terrifying planks to the Trump agenda, and we plan to devote ourselves to reporting thoroughly on each one and, crucially, covering the movements resisting them. We also recognize that Trump is a dire threat to journalism itself, and that we must take this seriously from the outset.
After the election, the four of us sat down to have some hard but necessary conversations about Truthout under a Trump presidency. How would we defend our publication from an avalanche of far right lawsuits that seek to bankrupt us? How would we keep our reporters safe if they need to cover outbreaks of political violence, or if they are targeted by authorities? How will we urgently produce the practical analysis, tools and movement coverage that you need right now — breaking through our normal routines to meet a terrifying moment in ways that best serve you?
It will be a tough, scary four years to produce social justice-driven journalism. We need to deliver news, strategy, liberatory ideas, tools and movement-sparking solutions with a force that we never have had to before. And at the same time, we desperately need to protect our ability to do so.
We know this is such a painful moment and donations may understandably be the last thing on your mind. But we must ask for your support, which is needed in a new and urgent way.
We promise we will kick into an even higher gear to give you truthful news that cuts against the disinformation and vitriol and hate and violence. We promise to publish analyses that will serve the needs of the movements we all rely on to survive the next four years, and even build for the future. We promise to be responsive, to recognize you as members of our community with a vital stake and voice in this work.
Please dig deep if you can, but a donation of any amount will be a truly meaningful and tangible action in this cataclysmic historical moment.
We’re with you. Let’s do all we can to move forward together.
With love, rage, and solidarity,
Maya, Negin, Saima, and Ziggy