This sounds like welcome news to me. Via Ezra Klein and Sam Stein of HuffPo, there is starting to be some serious talk about filibuster reform. Yesterday at a reporters’ briefing, Harry Reid had some interesting comments about the present and future of Senate procedure. From The Huffington Post:
“The filibuster has been abused. I believe that the Senate should be different than the House and will continue to be different than the House,” Reid said. “But we’re going to take a look at the filibuster. Next Congress, we’re going to take a look at it. We are likely to have to make some changes in it…”
Reid’s embrace of filibuster reform comes after he previously threw cold water on the likelihood of getting the rules changed. His reference to the “next Congress” stands out. To change Senate rules in the middle of the session requires 67 votes, which Democrats clearly don’t have. But changing the rules at the beginning of the 112th Congress will require the chair to declare the Senate is in a new session and can legally draft new rules. That ruling would be made by Vice President Joe Biden, who has spoken out against the current abuse of the filibuster. The ruling can be appealed, but that appeal can be defeated with a simple majority vote.
Granted, this would have no impact on the health care debate, but the Senate’s problems are far greater than the passing of one piece of legislation. The thing basically doesn’t work very well. What we have is a previously rarely-used tactic that used to be invoked only when Senators had a strong objection to the matter at hand. Now, as everyone knows, it takes 60 votes to do anything. If you think this is an exageration, look at how many votes got filibustered, delayed, then ultimately passed with overwhelming, sometimes almost unanimous, majorities.
As Stein points out, the likeliest way to reform Senate procedure and restore majority rule is to change the body’s rules at the beginning of the next session. Unlike the filibuster, the Senate and House’s ability to make their own rules actually is in the Constitution. When Congress reconvenes in January of odd years, it is considered to be a new Congress, and each house is able to make its own rules by majority consent. This seems to be what Reid is implying.
There was no mention of how the rules might be changed, but my favorite is the idea proposed several times by Tom Harkin of Iowa. Basically, the first vote would require 60 votes, but then three days later the threshold would drop to 57, then three days later to 54, then finally after another three days, a simple majority of 51 would be sufficient for passage. This still allows the minority to extend debate, just not indefinitely.
The other big thing that needs to be addressed is the number of executive branch positions that require Senate approval. Cabinet heads and senior officials — fine. But there’s no need for the Senate to approve the Assistant Deputy Undersecretary of some department that 15 people outside of DC have ever even heard of. If you want to stem the “Czarist tide”, this is the way. Whatever ends up happening, just the fact that this stuff is being talked about openly, and seriously, is encouraging to me.