E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSFrom NBC's Ken Strickland
In an agreement reached between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell, the world's most deliberative body will not change its rules on the filibuster after all.
A group of mostly freshmen senators were denied an opportunity to make changes with only a simple majority. They argue that the Senate rules allow that on the first day of a new session, the body may amend its rules with only 51 'yeas' instead of the 67 normally required. Democrats refer to this as "the constitutional option."
But Senate leaders have agreed not to take what many Republicans and some Democrats believe would be too drastic a step.
"Senator McConnell and I both believe that our reverence for this institution must always be more important than party," Reid said in a written statement. "And as part of this compromise, we have agreed that I won't force a majority vote to fundamentally change the Senate - that is, the so-called 'constitutional option.'"
The leaders agreed to five things that Reid said will lead to "a healthier Senate." Three of the changes are concrete, while the remaining two are more aspirational.
The first three:
1. Eliminating "secret holds," which can delay a nomination or legislation
2. Eliminating the tactic of forcing the Senate clerk of reading of an amendment aloud if it has already been publicly available for 72 hours
3. Creating legislation to exempt about 1/3 of all presidential nominations from the Senate confirmation process. These would primarily be low-level nominations for positions not directly involved with policy decisions.
In the remaining two:
4. Republican Leader McConnell agreed that he too would not try to change the Senate rules with the constitutional option "in this congress or the next Congress."
5. McConnell agreed to reduce his use of the filibuster on motions that bring the bills to the floor for debate. (There was no agreement on the frequency of filibusting bills before passage.) And Reid agreed to reduce his practice of "filling the tree," which blocks Republicans from offering amendments.
The first two items in the agreement will be codified with votes later today, which are expected to pass.
There will also be votes on the more dramatic changes to the filibuster rules that a small band of Democrats initially sought, but they will be subjected to a threshold of 67 votes (if all Senators are present), and are not expected to pass.
Leave a Comment:
Guess that's a big old no on anything about Global Warming Czar's dismissal, the 739 ObamaCare waivers, or the $1.5T debt this year?
The filibuster is an old and cherished mechanism to prevent the 'tyranny of the majority', and should be preserved. The 'Byrd Rule' largely prevents filibusters that would avoid needless delays on critical financial issues. These seem to be common sense changes.
I find it very interesting that unlike most FR vines, the first 10 or 15 posts AREN'T from the usual suspects spewing pastes from the HuffPo and moveon.org and trying to twist this into a bad thing, and all the Republicans' fault.
Does that have anything to do with the fact that the second part of the "informal" agreement basically has Reid admitting to what people NOT blinded by lef-wing partisan hackery have been saying for two years - that the Republicans filibustered because they were NOT allowed to bring amendment?
In otherwords, they were being forced by the Democrats to vote for what the Democrats wanted - or just say NO?
Plate of crow, UP!
Having gotten that off my chest, these changes look to be a Good Thing. Secret holds are for cowards - on either side of the aisle and lets not forget that the Dems used them too.
Finaly found proper info on the bloody waivers. Get over yourself Spanky. They are not what you claim they are:
Temporary waivers for these mini-med plans are not the same thing as exclusion from the law. Simply an understanding that until the larger bill is in place, that allows for the state run insurance exchanges, these plans need to continue.
What have I claimed they are?
Point being - why does the new law require waivers? Mini-med plans existed before the law was drafted, correct? These are not new plans? "unexpected?"
Apparently not a topic worthy of FR. Or maybe tomorrow, along with something on Browner? Holding my breath now.
Pragmatic: That would mean cowards like Jim DeMint, right.
Can you read? Did you notice that I said secret holds are for cowards on EITHER SIDE OF THE AISLE?
Stop the partisan hackery, okay? Just freaking stop it.
YES, ANYONE including DeMint that puts on a secret hold is a COWARD.
You seem to want to make some sort of point that the most recent COWARD you can name is a Republican. YEA, GOODY FOR YOU!!!!!!!
Can YOU simultaneously admit that there are DEMOCRAT cowards as well?
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=curb_your_bipartisanship
Notice, the source is a LIBERAL one.
I'll check back and see if your partisan hackery allows you to be honest or not.
Yes both sides are showing what has been happening. However, if you followed closely a lot of the NO and hindering came just because they were hindering on the GOP side. Both have been playing with our lives and it needs to stop. A lot of time was wasted by both and just like the vote to repeal that really didn't accomplish anything material, they need to spend their time working for the good of our country. If real comparisons are done, I think one will find that stubborn partisanship is and always will be going on. It is sad.
I think they should actually have to fillibuster, not just threaten to do so.
How many think this has something to do with the math in 2012- when the democrats will probably lose even more seats?
I was against changing the filibuster rule, as I was against the so-called "nuclear option" negated by the gang of twelve.
No one party will ever hold power ad infinitum.
no joe, no bo, nj "How many think this has something to do with the math in 2012- when the democrats will probably lose even more seats?"
You are correct. The Democrats lost 35% of their Senate seats in elections in 2010 (7 of 20), and they have 23 seats up for election in 2012, vs only 11 for Republicans. They have a similar problem in 2014, so it's very likely that the Republicans will control the Senate soon, so it's time to lock in changes.
"no joe, no bo, nj
How many think this has something to do with the math in 2012- when the democrats will probably lose even more seats?"
The voters, that put more Republicans in the House and Senate, are already having buyer's remorse.
If the GOPTP continues to sanctify the likes of Sarah Palin and the even more ignorant Michelle Bachmann, I don't think the Dems have a lot to worry about, in 2012.
Even their own candidates for 2010, that lost (Joe Miller, Sharron Angle and Christine (I'm not a witch) O'Donnell) were all Right wing wackos, supported by the Astoturf wing of the Tea Party.
By that time, the country will have had enough of Boehner, McConnell, Bachmann and the rest of the right wing loonies in congress.
As far as president, who has the GOP got? Bachmann and maybe Palin will run. I, personally, would like to see a Palin/Bachmann ticket.
The Mormon will be too boring for the Tea Party, so he is not really a contender.
Rudy (a noun, a verb and 9/11) Guilliani, Pawlenty? Donald Trump?
Who will it be?
Prove your "buyers remorse". There have been THREE WEEKS of Congressional sessions - two, if you subtract the week they ended floor action out of respect for Cong. Giffords. Unless you're another one of those people who didn't understand that the people elected on 11/2 weren't sworn in until 1/5.
I am so damn sick of lying liberals with a hard-on for Sarah Palin.
Yea, you.
The Palin obsession is getting pretty old. Almost as old as the Bush's fault obsession but not nearly as old as the It's because he's black obsession.
The secret Byrd and the fillibuster.....what is the secret?
Must be a slow MSNBC day......why not have an article on the increase in unemployment claims today, or perhaps the $1.5T deficit. Can we now lose Bush and give this to Obama as his ownership?
What happened between the second comings speech that all is good in Washington, and today? How can the President now want to cut spending while increasing the debt faster than any other president?
I cannot wait to read the navy comments, the Louis comments and the other professional bloggers for MSNBC when they comment tomorrow. Should be a great spin..... and I can't wait to read Feisty's retorts or "Cut & Paste" with her moveon.org talking points.
Considering these past elections saw almost 30% of registered Democrats voting (which is pretty much the norm in mid-terms) and the fact that Republicans have clearly delivered the minority vote to the Democrats (a voting block which is estimated to actually be the majority within the next decade)
It seems Republicans could be losing A LOT of seats beginning in 2012 and losing an increasing number every election for the next decade
The worst thing possible for any demographic population is being monolithic in voting. The reason being, if you are monolithic in your voting as a people, then the party you vote for can ignore you because you are a sure thing. And the other party also ignores you because no matter what they do they feel they can never get your vote either.
The best way to get something done for your population is to make parties work for you and reward them when they do while never becoming a sure thing for them. Any group of people who does otherwise is doing themselves a disservice.
Spanky ~ I'm against the waivers, too. And debt bothers me, too -- I have none of my own. So does the apparent dismissal of Carol Browner while the White House "re-aligns" its approach to climate change. That's three for three. Does that make me less dumb or you less smart?
no joe ~
Why not? Aren't republicans going to fix it all again next time? Just like George W. Bush did?
Anna Molly I never said you were dumb. In fact that was a reference to me.
You are pushy, remember? And congradulations onn the debt, particulary student loans. Those sucked.
But anyway, why do you suppose these issues do not bother the crack staff at FR? Nary a mention. Odd, no?
My #1 issue was the secret holds -- you must be willing to stand up and say why you are against a bill or else keep quiet. My #2 issue is doing a "real" fillibuster, a la Mr Smith Goes to Washington. Again, be willing to stand up (literally) for what you believe in. So we'll see whether the senators can start playing nicer under the very minimal changes they've agreed to.
These so called changes don't amount to anything. McConnell and the teapublicans will just ignore them anyway.
Chris -
It's the democrats who wanted to change the rules - just like they do whenever they start losing their majority in the Senate. Then they get upset when things still don't go their way.
Seems like if the democrats wanted to play the same games the republicans have since they lost their majority, they would not be wanting to change the rules. And they havent lost thier majority yet.
I'm no scientist. Certainly no geologist or meterologist, but I have to wonder:
The fossil fuels we use took millions of years to be created by the storing of the sun's energy via photosynthysis and other processes. Over millions of years, millions of BTU's of energy were created and stored in decaying plant material.
IF much of that energy were released in the relatively rapid space of, say, 200 years- why COULD'T some degree of warming be going on?
NOW- I'm not saying Global Warming is fact, but just asking why it's so hard to say it's at least a possibilty, instead of saying it's definately Bull Sh*t?
And yes- I know the subject of this thread is NOT global warming, so save your beating for another time.
Science? Forget about it.
Just go to Disneyland and ride the train. First you go through the Grand Canyon "of today." there's snow, a mountain lion, some rams. It's a forest.
Then you go through a dark part and the music goes ominious. Then you see the canyon during primordial times. There are dinosaurs fighting and skeletons in a drying pond. It's an arid hot desert.
See, Walt knew. Al knows too, he just bought a house at sea level in Santa Barbara. And surely Drive By you remember the scare back in the late 70's "GLOBAL ICE AGE!" It was on the frigging cover of Time magizine for the love of Gore.
hey drive-by,
I'm not either, but here goes....
Evil "Greenhouse Gases"?
94.4% is water vapor. The essential element to life.
4.2% is CO2. The bad stuff right, except that it is also an essential element to life. (Plant life)
Of that 4.2% - only 1.8% is anthropogenic (that's man made for the Bevs and Feistys). That is 1.8% of, not out of which relates to about .0007%
Hard to relate to. Take 10 1x1x1 boxes, paint 7 black and fill with CO2 and line up on the ground with the other three. Now put a thousand boxes on top of each one - that wall 10'x1,000' H represents one percent. 100% is 100 x that 1,000' or 100,000'. Now glass in that 10' wide by 100,000' tall wall, open up the 7 boxes on the ground with CO2 in them and see how much all those boxes extending into near space heat up. Now appy that integral calculus to the Earth.
Enough to melt glaciers, cause the seas to rise?
Yea right.
Didn't answer your question exactly, but given everything this planet has been through, seems pretty asinine to me.
Drive By is gone now (quittin' time), but he knows better. He was watching Star Trek when it originally aired: we are all carbon based life forms after all.
Except Van Jones - he was just full of crap.
LMAO. That's right. Global warming is secretly a ruse for AlGore to get rich. The oil companies, who's stated purpose is to sell the rest of us all of the oil, they aren't the ones who have motivation to lie for profit. Its definitely AlGore. He invented the internet so that free porn would distract everyone from his Global Warming Ruse. If he bought a house in California, then he obviously doesn't believe in Global Warming. We should just let the market sort it out. You know, the infallibale, natural force of the market.
The sad part is that people who think like that still get to vote, and it counts just as much as people aren't morons vote. That's why this country is going to hell, because the founding father's had the forsight to let the morons vote, and for it to matter. Since Americans are all by and large fat, lazy, morons, now too are their elected reps.
Well pled - anyone who doesn't agree with you is a moron. Or is it fat, lazy morons who vote?
How's the gas milage on that Pruis jcj? Got your tax payer subsidized Volt yet? I hear they are pretty shiny?
Or, when you where refering to fat people, were you speaking of Big Al? Cause Walt Disney wasn't fat.
"Spanky-
And surely Drive By you remember the scare back in the late 70's "GLOBAL ICE AGE!" It was on the frigging cover of Time magizine for the love of Gore."
Holy crap!! Not the 70's "GLOBAL ICE AGE" myth again.
Yes, and since Time Magazine is a reputable scientific journal, it must be true, huh?
Since you have not been here, very long, let me be the first to tell you that you are full of crap.
There were no climate scientists predicting a coming Global Ice Age, in the '70s.
Do your own research, but remember to turn off Glenn Beck, first, so that you won't be distracted by his set of "facts".
I'll help you get started with this and then you are on your own -
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2005/01/the-global-cooling-myth/
One mid-sized krakatoa type eruption puts more greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere in 24 hrs than burning all the fossil fuel known to exist in 24 hrs would. Next question.
Bob,
To paraphrase the libbienuts: Great Post Bob! Such a detailed analysis for the ozone. Or: can you site the science behind those numbers Bob?
I can't wait to hear the comments on this bob......
Well pled, just ignore the facts as presented and argue about a strawman.
When I spoke of fat, lazy people, I was talking about you, and your fat, lazy mother, and her dreadful body odor. Sorry to stretch your faculties so much, son.
FTR, I don't drive a Prius. I drive a ten year old Chevy truck that's been paid for for three years. Unlike your neighbor's Tahoe, I actually have need and use for a truck and four wheel drive. I'm a farmer. You just want one because it you want to be like me so bad.
Keep trying and failing, its lots of fun to watch, even from the cheap seats.
Thanks for shoveling down all that high fructose corn syrup, tubby. Chingy ching in my pocket.
Hey bob, your psuedo-sciencce post was mostly BS.
Only the man made CO2 is a greenhouse gas? All that other CO2, that you say is natural, I guess it just ignores the laws of physics and doesn't act as an exchange inhibitor. Do you have any proof of this miracle? BTW, water vapor IS a greenhouse gas. It doesn't matter if its the basic element of life (that's carbon, btw, not hydrogen OR oxygen, but that's a whole 'nother thing that you got wrong, and not the argument at hand) or not, its still a greenhouse gas. So you don't get to just not count it because your leash holders told you to. It was cute of you to try, though. It even earned you an admirer in the form of safecracker, who lacked the cognition to recognize your obviously bullshi+ post.
Maybe you'll find time to reply after Glenn Beck goes off.
I once visited the Jarvis Islands South of Hawaii,,,,,,,,,,,No more, They are beneath sea level
Many Island nations where people have lived for thousands of years in the South Pacific at this time are in a panic due to rising ocean levels, The polar ice caps are shrinking steadily and measurably (and sometimes in large sections) Global warming is pretty hard to dispute, We can only dispute the causes,,,,,,Myself, I think it is a natural phase increased by human activity, We must change our thinking and our use of fossil fuels, But that will NOT stop global warming, It can only bring it close to it's normal rate
jcj,
Maybe you should at least wiki something (like greenhouse gases in this case) before making a jackass out of yourself.
You'll still be a jackass, just not an ignorant jackass.
well pled bob. Your numbers don't add up because I'm ignorant.
You don't have to make excuses for why you hate science bob, it obvious: Its because it makes your corporate leash holders out to be the criminals that they are.
I agree with Indie Woman. Although, if I had to choose, I would rather the secret holds were eliminated before they go "Mr. Smith". No one really has to make an effort to fillibuster. She is also right that they should be standing up there for what they believe! Good Post!
If they say they are going to fillibuster, then they should get up there and do it. This is BS
The only change here is there is no change. Not even in my pocket.
Oh well, it is a good first step. and much like Indie Woman the "secret hold" was driving me insane. Senator Tom Coburn (R, OK) has had a hold on the funds to assist Haiti and here we have sat wondering why more recovery progress was not occurring.
I too would like to see them go somewhat in the way of "Mr Smith" and be forced to stand up there and voice their opposition to the legislation. The minute they would start reading from "War and Peace" in an attempt to retain the floor when their debate points are clearly gone would mean it's time to vote!
At least getting rid of the secret holds is a significant positive step.
This is a start. What I rally want to see is McConnell keeping his promise to reduce filibusters. 203 in the last two congressional sessions is a lot, more than twice as many in the previous four sessions. No wonder lawmaking has about ground to a halt. This is not enough, but better than nothing. Notice that unlike the Republicans in the last decade, the Democrats did not threaten to remove the filibuster when they gained control of Congress. Maybe they should have, because the Republicans have abused it beyond belief. Another reason I stopped voting Republican. They need to clean up their act.
Then perhaps you should talk to the democrats as well, as without a supermajority the democrats will not be able to get trash legislation passed simply by buying the democrats off with pork for their states, so look for them to start to use it - especially Reid when he doesn't get what he wants.
He's as bad as Pelosi for being a spoiled brat.
Republicans are responsible for alot of that pork. Nothing they like better than loading a bill with pork to slow the process down then voting against it.
Hilarious...
How many times, right here at First Read, have I insisted that Senate Democrats would never make meaningful changes to the cloture and filibuster rules?
Anyone...?
Because...I've lost track.
The hypocrisy of the Senate Democrats on the subject of the abuse of the cloture and filibuster rules is truly breathtaking, isn't it?
Where's "truther" Paul?
He's going to love this...
O, I'm sure Paul is self medicating over this, but his whole title is "Junior" Senator from Kentucky. The boss is McConnell. But what about Roid? I would think that a democratic mutiny would be in order. Process my Arss. Roid fumbled and then fell down. He gave Mitch McConnell the gavel. Are these folks ever IQ tested? The way these leaders are allowed to do, the money only has to go to them to get lucky. Congress is a cesspool.
The proposed changes were modest, not sweeping, and it's a shame that even they couldn't obtain a majority. None of this is going to keep the Republicans from continuing to obstruct every single bill they possibly can, and stymying every single appointment to the judiciary. Even John Roberts says the vacancies in the judicial branch are dire, but the Republicans in the Senate continue to think that only a Republican President has any business appointing judges.
Only difference is the Republicans will be writing the bills in the House. Lets see what they come up with. (More tax breaks for the rich)
I seem to recall that both of Obama's liberal appointments to the SCOTUS were approved by votes in the Senate. This agreement will eliminate the secret holds that both parties have used in the past when they were in the minority. But the fillibuster is an important part of the process in the Senate to protect the rights of whomever is in the minority. For the next couple years it really doesn't matter. With the Senate in control of Dems and the House in control of Reps, only bipartisan legislation will pass.
Can you name as many pieces of bipartisan legislation, that will pass, as the number of fingers on both hands?
What is your obsession with legislation? We have enough already that is useless and unenforceable. Don't forget, stop signs are for dumbasses who would drive into oncoming traffic without them. Makes ya feel like a dumbass every time ya see one, but ya kinda get used to feeling like a dumbassed sheep just to survive.
Those like Mr. Roy Wilson, who give great deferrence to the filibuster, should check their history. It is a senate rule, not one that is enshrined in the Constitution. It is generally recognized to have been the brainchild of that great American Statesman Aaron Burr... the guy who tried to form his own country. It has invariably been used to block the majority, but not for good causes. In most cases, it has not been Mr. Smith goes to Washington, but Mr. Thurmond blocking Civil Rights legislation. It was used in the lsat Congress by the GOP minority to block debate even on measures that later passed without change 98 to zero. I undertand that now the House GOP leadership is upset that the Democratic majority in the Senate won't even discuss their Health Care Repeal bill. Interesting how they were o.k. with their Senate minority using the same tactic....
What do you expect when you have the same 2 leaders of the same 2 parties running the show?
So Roid caved to Darth Vader McConnell. I figure there is some money changing hands over this one.
Reid's whoring himself mercilessly to get his earmarks probally, he must owe alot of favors.
Idiot buisness as usual should be looking for a brain that can help fix the budget. But that just a dream with repubs and dems.
The secret hold is both odius and cowardly. Often it is applied, not because of objections to an appointment, but rather for the Senator in question to try to force his way on another issue. Senator David Vitter famously did that recently, placing a hold on an appointment because he wanted the gulf oil drilling ban lifted. While getting rid of the secret hold is a positive step, the pessimistic side of me says it may not do any good. There is ALREADY a rule in place to minimize secret holds, that is, a senator can only hold one in place for a certain number of days (I think it is 5 days). However, just like sharp financiers who figure another way when they lose their favorite tax loophole, senators figured a way around that rule, too. A senator would place a hold, and just as it expired, he would hand it to another senator who would re-institute the hold. In this round robin manner, the hold would go on indefinitely.
" Pragmatic to a fault" is right on one thing, HE IS FULL OF FAULTS. The democrats are doing EXACTLY what was forced on them by the republicrap congress under George Jr. Democrats were not allowed to even be in the same room when proposed bills were being discussed, MUCH LESS ACTUALLY HAVE INPUT TO AMMENDMENTS.. The republicrap led congress was a complete sham, it allowed the wrong information to be advertised in the run up to the war in Afghanistan and a complete cover up on the Intel that started the Iraq war. That is why we voted the bums out. WE WILL DO IT AGAIN IN 2012. Now that you can see the actual agenda it only makes their demise even more certain. Even their tea baggers will show their true colors now that they "have a voice". WE AWAIT ALL THE JOBS THEY SAID THEY WILL BRING TO OUR CITIZENS. Of course this was another lie, the sorry thing is PEOPLE ACTUALLY BELIEVED IT.
Despite the fact the constitutional option was not utilized, the main problem with the overuse of filibusters was addressed. I do believe that filibusters serve an important role, but secret holds do nothing but cause unnecessary gridlock. If you threaten to filibuster, you better feel strongly enough about an issue to actually do it. This is important for the weakened democrats, and a move I feel was necessary for a republican party which seems determined to get things done their . Yes, the last two agreements are nothing more than agreements, but at least an attempt of such negotiations shows promise of party cooperation in the future.
My thoughts exactly. Good post.
What I didnt like when politicians have denied or gave someone a ranking position because of a vote even if it was against their position.Biggest creator of partisan politics.This is at least some agreement,even if its a pebble of sand on a large beach.Time to bring the men and women home from Iraq.Their families need them.
these filibusters should last only as long as these "old white bastards" can stand and talk !!! when they drop from exhaustion or just drop dead, the filibuster should be over !!! that's the only change I want !!!
Unfortunately, they don't have to stand and talk to filibuster. Now they just phone them in. At the least, if a senator feels strongly enough to oppose legislation or a nomination by filibuster, he or she ought to have to stand on the Senate floor and tell the American people why.
I'm glad to see any kind of progress made between the two parties that should result in spending more time constructively solving our problems and less time spent fillibustering.
Reid and McConnell revere a dysfunctional institution. Even the so-called constitutional option didn't go far enough: The Senate should become the American version of the House of Lords.
Getting rid of the holds is a good first step, but the rest of the changes are just window dressing, and barely that. The Republicans agree to reduce the use of filibusters if the Democrats open up the amending process. But you know that agreement won't last, and we'll be back in the same mess.
There is no constitutional right to a filibuster other than the fact that the Senate can set its own rules. And if they are going to have a filibuster, let's have the filibuster be meaningful. Let the debate be endless, instead of just filing a motion, which is essentially what a filibuster is these days.
Exactly. And that's hardly a radical proposal: It takes things back to the way they used to be, something that Republicans are usually all for. Plus, if the filibuster is not in the Constitution, shouldn't the teabaggers oppose it as a matter of knee-jerk originalism?