Reid, McConnell reach Senate filibuster deal

[There Is No Spoon]

By MANU RAJU | 1/24/13 11:53 AM EST

Senate leaders have cut a deal designed to ease the gridlock in the slow-moving Senate, limiting the GOP’s use of the filibuster but ensuring the minority party has the right to offer amendments on the floor, according to sources and documents obtained by POLITICO.

The deal — reached after days of negotiations between Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) — would avert a partisan showdown known by critics as the “nuclear option” where Democrats were preparing to muscle through a series of changes on a party-line basis.

One path for immediately beginning debate would occur if Reid allowed both Democrats and Republicans to offer two amendments each to legislation. If the amendments were not relevant to the bill, they would be subject to a 60-vote threshold. Reid could block further amendments after votes to either accept or kill those four measures.

On non-controversial bills, when Reid and McConnell reach agreement, votes to overcome filibusters would happen the day after Reid files a procedural motion — rather than the two-day rule that exists now. And after the filibuster is defeated in those consensus situations, the Senate could immediately begin debate, rather than wait out a full 30 hours required under current rules.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/re...z2Iuu8NF5f

______________


Seems like a step in the right direction. Not all that Dems were hoping for, but it seems like it will help. Also, the plan prevents non-controversial Presidential nominations from being blocked.

[pappy]

From the article linked above:

Quote:Senate leaders — or senators leading floor debate — can demand that those who are objecting come to the floor to make their concerns heard. If a senator does not allow to speed debate in certain situations, the Senate will force live quorum calls that would compel senators attendance on the floor.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/re...z2IuwOziDt

(Bad editing aside) As reported by Politico this measure could prove to be the most helpful. It seems to suggest that once a filibuster is called the person or persons demanding it could be forced to defend the call in much the same way as the "talking filibuster" idea that has been favored by many Dems. Without the details however it is hard to know how it would work in practice.

I have a feeling that McConnell will have a hard time selling any of this to his caucus and if it passes as a new rule for Senate debate it will only be with minimal Republican support.

[pappy]

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/ruleshanges.pdf

Forgot a link to another part of the agreement

http://big.assets.huffingtonpost.com/standingorder.pdf

[janedrake]

I'm in the habit of defending Harry Reid out here on the internets, but have to admit, am disappointed with this result. As Norm Ornstein put it, it doesn't "extract any price for the GOP'S bad behavior" and it still puts the onus on Dems to come up with 60 votes for almost every damn bill.

[OptimistesMaddie]

McConnel wins this.

Why? He can just say his caucus didn't support it and things will remain the same.

Reid has no leverage because the window has closed. There is nothing forcing the Repugs to cooperate.

How many times does a Republican have to lie to you before you believe he will never be truthful and honor his word.

I am highly disappointed in this so called deal.

[There Is No Spoon]

(01-24-2013 07:18 PM)OptimistesMaddie Wrote:  McConnel wins this.

Why? He can just say his caucus didn't support it and things will remain the same.

Reid has no leverage because the window has closed. There is nothing forcing the Repugs to cooperate.

How many times does a Republican have to lie to you before you believe he will never be truthful and honor his word.

I am highly disappointed in this so called deal.

Yeah, overall this looks like it's not going to help much at all.

[janedrake]

Just finished listening to Big Ed and Bernie Sanders raking a seemingly deserving Reid over the coals... but one thing that they glossed over -- Sanders said Reid did not have the votes in the Democratic caucus in the Senate to pass stronger reform -- there were six or seven Dems who would not vote for it. So, now my question is, just what else could Reid have done, and who are the Dems who are really responsible for the crowing Mitch McConnell's been able to do over this.

[pappy]

(01-25-2013 07:53 PM)janedrake Wrote:  Just finished listening to Big Ed and Bernie Sanders raking a seemingly deserving Reid over the coals... but one thing that they glossed over -- Sanders said Reid did not have the votes in the Democratic caucus in the Senate to pass stronger reform -- there were six or seven Dems who would not vote for it. So, now my question is, just what else could Reid have done, and who are the Dems who are really responsible for the crowing Mitch McConnell's been able to do over this.

If you want the names you'll have to quietly ask Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) who, it is reported, got a dressing down for discussing the names of the Dems in opposition with supporters and urging them to put pressure on those Senators.

I can make a few guesses though and I would put McCaskill, Landrieu and Tester high on my list of usual suspects.

[sandnsea]

I disagree with going back to allowing one person to stand in the chamber and gum up the works. I don't see how allowing 40 different senators the opportunity to individually obstruct legislation is any better than being able to point at an entire party block. I would have preferred an incremental filibuster rule of some sort. But I generally agree with Dick Durbin. As I've said elsewhere, the only reason we have an Arctic Refuge is the 60 vote filibuster.

"Merkley was going too far, Levin suggested, echoing concerns of more senior members who worry that they could once again be in the minority and stripped of their most power weapon."

http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index..._on_f.html