OpenCongress Blog

Blog Feed Comments Feed More RSS Feeds

Senate Dems Abandon Filibuster Reform

January 25, 2011 - by Donny Shaw

The Democrats’ cave-in on reforming the filibuster in the Senate appears to be complete. According to reports, Senate Rules Committee Chairman Sen. Chuck Schumer [D, NY] is bringing a proposal to his fellow Democrats this afternoon that would do nothing to address the recent explosion in senators using procedural rules to kill bills just by threatening to filibuster. It apparently includes three minor changes in the Senate rules and is accompanied by a gentlemen’s agreement to start behaving more reasonably, sometimes. Here’s what’s in it.

Rules changes that will probably be codified in the rules —

  • Ending secret holds — The Democrats tried banning secret holds in 2007 when they took over power from the Republicans by requiring disclosure of the holding senator’s name within six days of the hold being isued, but it didn’t work because senators dodged the rule by teamimg up and trading holds back-and-forth every five days. Schumer’s proposal is expected to require disclosure of the holding senator within one day of the hold being placed.
  • Removing some presidential appointees from advice and consent consideration — In the past two years, Republicans have severally limited the Democrats’ ability to confirm presidential nominees by using their constitutional advice and consent powers to require hearings and cloture votes, even when the nominees in question are completely non-controversial. Schumer’s proposal would make some presidentially-appointed positions immune to this kind of dilatory action. Dave Dayen says it will be for about 100 nominees of the 1,400 that are pending.
  • End ability to force full readings of bills as a way to delay — Under current rules, each senator has the right to require a full reading of all amendments and bills when they are offered on the Senate floor. Since a lot of major legislation ends up getting done in the form of a substitute amendment to an unrelated bill, senators can use this power to basically shut down the chamber for several days when the majority party tries to bring it up something important (and lengthy).

Informal agreements accompanying the rules —

  • Less auto-filibustering — In the past four years that the Republicans have been in the minority, the threat to filibuster has become standard operating procedure for everything, even on the question of beginning debate. The effect has been that it takes much longer to take care of non-controversial business and bills that have a clear majority support are unable to pass because it takes a 3/5ths majority to overcome a filibuster threat. According to Schumer, as a supplement to the rules changes, Minority Leader Sen. Mitch McConnell [R, KY] will agree off-the-record to issue fewer filibuster threats.
  • Less amendment-tree filling — As a result of the auto-filibuster, Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid [D, NV] has been blocking the minority’s ability to introduce dilatory and poison-pill amendments by filing the total number of allowable amendments himself and then not calling them up for votes. The unfortunate side effect is that senators who have serious amendments are unable to offer them and get a vote. In exchange for fewer filibuster threats from the Republicans, Schumer says that Reid is prepared to leave room for more amendments to be voted on.

And that’s it. This is really worlds away from the original idea that kicked off this whole effort — that a clear majority of senators should be able to legislate without stooping to the will of a clear minority at every step. According to Reid, theis mild derivative will be complete within the next 24 to 48 hours. The 60-vote Senate lives on!

Sen. Schumer is pictured above.

Like this post? Stay in touch by following us on Twitter, joining us on Facebook, or by Subscribing with RSS.


  • KyleAbbott 01/25/2011 2:08pm

    The intent of the Founders’ is preserved!

  • davidcjackman 01/25/2011 10:06pm

    In the 50s, a Senator took the floor & mounted a record filibuster, speaking for over 24 hours in an effort to stop the Civil Rights Act. Sleeping cots were brought in while the Senator spoke of biscuit recipes & recited the words of our revered documents: the Declaration of Independence & the phonebook. It, although still regarded as maybe the most unbelievable waste of time & effort, was unsuccessful. Real legislating/debate time was lost because 1 Senator didn’t like the result. Is this fair?

    The 24h-filibuster was more admirable than today’s act of secretly blocking legislation to force a cloture vote. I don’t think we should put a time limit on a bill’s debate, but the privilege Senators have to debate has been abused by some for pure obstruction purposes, & I see only the Senate’s ability to function as a whole as being affected. I hope I’m not being unreasonable in my views on this, as I would greatly prefer a rule requiring the filibuster actually be carried out over nothing.

  • DeborahJBrown 01/26/2011 2:26am

    The filibuster procedure has a purpose and should remain but it’s been badly abused in recent years. It wouldn’t need reform if our representatives behaved like grown-ups instead of brawling children trying to outsmart one another by finding legal crevices to crawl in.

  • yoder 01/29/2011 12:59pm

    Dems have shown that their spineless tendencies will carry through to the new Congress. ®’s will continue to be the party of “no” and will continue to break things rather than fix.

    In other words…no change.

  • CANDY2011 02/11/2011 3:01pm

    Manolo Blahnik Bottes
    Manolo Blahnik Pompes
    Manolo Blahnik Sandales
    Yves Saint Laurent Bottes
    Yves Saint Laurent Pompes
    Yves Saint Laurent Sandales

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

  • Spam Comment

Due to the archiving of this blog, comment posting has been disabled.