Tag Archives: Congress

CONGRESS: How To Limit Senate Obstruction


Due to Republican intransigence, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has officially given up hope of passing legislation responding to the BP oil disaster and the looming threat of climate change. Of course, this is merely the latest example of the 111th Senate’s inaction; the chamber has been gridlocked by unprecedented obstruction from the minority bloc of 41 Republican senators. Signature pieces of legislation that the body has been able to pass, such as the stimulus, health care reform, and financial regulatory reform, have been delayed and watered-down because of the Republicans’ manipulation of arcane Senate procedure. The GOP’s super-minority is empowered by procedural relics such as the filibuster, and while they are currently succeeding in miring the upper house in dysfunction, momentum is building to reform the Senate’s rules and prevent routine obstruction from continually halting progress. Today’s Progress Report reviews the current tactics of obstruction practiced by the minority in the Senate. Tomorrow’s Progress Report will address Republicans’ application of the filibuster and holds to engage in serial obstruction of Obama’s judicial nominees.

ARCANE PROCEDURE: The Constitution’s framers never meant to design a system that would enable the GOP’s modern level of obstruction. In Federalist #58, James Madison explained why he opposed routine super-majority requirements: “In all cases where justice or the general good might require new laws to be passed, or active measures to be pursued, the fundamental principle of free government would be reversed.” As congressional scholar Sarah Binder explained in testimony before the Senate Rules Committee in April, “the filibuster was created by mistake” in 1806. In the course of “procedural housekeeping,” a new policy ended up preventing senators from cutting off debate. As Binder explains, it took years “before anyone figure[d] out that the filibuster ha[d] just been created,” after which members launched the “filibuster” tradition of talking on the Senate floor for as long as possible to derail votes. In 1917, the Senate began formalizing the filibuster process through Rule XXII, which let two-thirds of members vote for “cloture,” end debate, and vote on a bill. A rules change at the beginning of the Senate’s session in 1975 lowered the threshold for ending a filibuster from two-thirds to the modern-day three-fifths super-majority. However, the new policy also made filibusters much easier to execute: “to maintain a filibuster, senators no longer had to keep talking…they just say they will, and that’s enough.” Moreover, under today’s filibuster rules, even once a 60-member super-majority wins a cloture vote, the minority can force the chamber to wait another 30 hours before the bill can actually be passed. When Republicans became the minority party in the Senate after 2006, they sharply increased the number of filibusters waged. Meanwhile, because of informal senatorial arrangements known as “holds,” “a courtesy extended to senators in the days of horse travel,” any one senator can block or delay a measure from coming to the floor for a vote. Judging by the Constitution and the Federalist Papers, though, the founding fathers wanted simple majorities to prevail in the Senate. One of the vice president’s constitutional duties is to break ties in the Senate, but if a bill with just half of members’ support could never be voted on, that power is rendered meaningless.

‘MINDLESS’ OBSTRUCTION: Since Obama took office, Senate Republicans have committed to using any arcane procedure to delay the progressive agenda. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) uses “his extensive knowledge of Senate procedure to slow things down…and deny Democrats any Republican support on big legislation.” Vice President Joe Biden said in June, “I know at least 7 [GOP] senators, who I will not name,” who were threatened with “losing their chairmanships, if they did not support the leadership on every procedural vote.” Even though climate change legislation “seems to have been supported by a majority of legislators in both houses,” it recently failed because it couldn’t attract a Senate super-majority. Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN), who is retiring from the Senate in a state of frustration, argues that while filibusters were once “reserved for things of truly large import, they are now “used to just stop the place from moving.” The 30-hour requirement between filibuster votes and final passage means “it takes about three days to break a filibuster, and a single bill can face multiple filibusters, and so you can waste a week on a small bill that passes by 70 votes.” When an unemployment benefits extension finally cleared the 60-votes in July, Reid blasted Republicans for insisting on the 30-hour delay: “I just can’t articulate in strong enough feelings how unfair this is to 2.5 million people” waiting for their benefits. In an interview with The Progress Report, Sen. Al Franken (D-MN) blamed Senate Republicans for politicized obstruction of a jobs bill. “This whole approach of slowing everything down…they don’t want a jobs bill because they don’t want people to get jobs before the election,” he told us. “The obstructionism has become mindless,” says Sen. Carl Levin (D-MI). In February, Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL) used a hold to block all 70 pending executive nominations, “a far more aggressive use of the power than is normal,” because he wanted to help send more defense spending to his home state. In a clear effort to stall a vote on a nuclear arms treaty until after the recess, Senate Republicans submitted over 700 questions on it to the White House and demanded answers before they would let the treaty proceed. Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) recently placed a hold on Gen. James Clapper’s nomination to be Director of National Intelligence, even though delaying confirmation past the recess would leave the critical position vacant. When Obama recently announced 15 recess appointments, he “faced an unprecedented level of obstruction in the Senate” on his nominees, having dramatically more still pending than former President Bush had at the same point in his presidency.

MOMENTUM FOR REFORM: Scott Lilly, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, wrote a report in March calling for procedure reform because of the “systemic failure” of the Senate’s modern operation. Fortunately, support for reform is building. At Netroots Nation in July, Reid “expressed his support for filibuster reform.” Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) has a proposal deemed “the constitutional option” that would let 50 senators — with a tie-breaking vote from Biden — vote to change the filibuster rules once a new Congress convenes in January. Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) has been another vocal reform proponent, recently releasing a statement describing its intent: “This isn’t about giving one party or the other more power, it’s about getting things done and honoring the will of the American people.” Sen. Michael Bennet (D-CO) has offered a separate bill that would “eliminate anonymous holds, limit holds without bipartisan support to two days, and limit all holds to 30 days.” The measure would also “require 41 senators to vote to uphold the filibuster, reversing the current requirement that 60 senators vote to stop it,” putting “the onus of organizing support on those who are filibustering.” Senior Senate Democrats, including Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) and Tom Harkin (D-IA), support mending the rules, as does former vice-president and former Senator Walter Mondale. The American public supports letting a simple majority pass bills in the Senate by 50 percent to 44 percent.

UPDATE: Elizabeth Warren …from Boldprogressives.org


Al Franken released a strong statement supporting Elizabeth Warren!

Call Sens. Murray and Cantwell and ask them to join the Franken Statement


MSNBC featured our Elizabeth Warren petition yesterday!

PCCC Warren Petition on MSNBC

Progressive talk show host Cenk Uygur is guest hosting the 3pm EST hour of MSNBC all this week! He featured our Warren actions yesterday — tune in today to help his ratings rise and show that the public wants strong progressive voices on the air.

The Washington Post, New York Times, and Wall Street Journal have all reported on our petition with Credo Action supporting Elizabeth Warren to head the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau — and we hit 200,000 signers!

Our momentum really impressed Senator Franken from Minnesota – so much that he’s released a statement supporting Warren for the job and he’s working with us to ask his colleagues to sign on.

Can you call Senators Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell and ask them if they will sign on to Franken’s statement? Click here to make a call.

So far, our public pressure has taken us from 6 to 63 House members endorsing Warren publicly and led the White House to issue this game-changing statement:

Robert Gibbs, Obama spokesman: “I would say Elizabeth Warren is a terrific candidate. I don’t think any criticism in any way by anybody would disqualify her. I think she’s very confirmable for this job.”

Now let’s prove them right.

Can you call Sens. Murray and Cantwell and ask them to sign on to the Franken statement supporting Warren – and prove she’s confirmable?

Click here for a script and the number.

Every Senator that signs puts more pressure on the White House to appoint Warren. And it helps us keep the media focused on the issue, leading to more coverage like this:

Washington Post: The PCCC “helped Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) organize a letter calling on President Obama to nominate Elizabeth Warren to lead the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau…the group helped Maloney’s letter attract more than 60 members of Congress as co-signers.”
New York Post: “The PCCC has fetched more than 200,000 signatures in support of a Warren nomination in the past week.”

Can you take a minute to call Sens. Murray and Cantwell and ask them to sign the Franken statement?

Thanks for being a bold progressive,

–Julia Rosen and the PCCC team

Don’t let Target and Best Buy off the hook!


I’m awestruck.

Nearly 100,000 people have signed our open letter calling out Target and Best Buy for supporting a rabidly anti-equality candidate. Our campaign is spreading like wildfire, from Facebook and Twitter to Keith Olbermann’s show and major newspapers.

Target and Best Buy are feeling the heat – but they still haven’t made it right!

We can’t let this one go. So we put together a quick video showing why this fight could have a huge impact – and the truth about the anti-equality candidate at the center of this storm…

Watch the video and add your name to our open letter – then forward this email to ten friends!

Let’s keep the pressure up,
Joe

P.S. Posting this video on Facebook is another great way to share this with all your friends at once. Here’s Friday’s email in case you missed it:

Federal judge declares Prop. 8 unconstitutional!


Human Rights Campaign


BREAKING NEWS:

Federal judge declares Prop. 8 unconstitutional!

The two loving couples who were plaintiffs in this case deserve our gratitude.

Today we moved a step closer to full equality.

After the first-ever federal trial on whether it’s legal to ban same-sex couples from marrying, the district court ruled that Proposition 8 violated the U.S. Constitution.

This court’s ruling will undoubtedly be appealed, so our struggle is far from over. But it was a tremendous step forward for equality and a critical win.

The two courageous couples who acted as plaintiffs in this suit opened up their lives to months of public scrutiny and helped bring about this victory, fighting alongside the legal team of Ted Olson, David Boies and the American Foundation for Equal Rights. They deserve our gratitude. Will you take a moment to thank them?

Here is another way to get involved. Today, people in cities across the country will be gathering for peaceful “Day of Decision” rallies to take advantage of this moment and show the broad support for marriage equality among both LGBT and straight Americans. Find out if there’s a rally near you.

This case was a landmark. Over the course of the months-long trial, the plaintiffs introduced substantial testimony and evidence to finally show that Prop. 8 had discriminatory motivations – and that same-sex couples are entitled to equal rights. Because this is a district court decision and will most likely be appealed, it may not have an immediate effect on marriage bans in California or any other states. Nonetheless, it’s a significant moment. It’s a vindication of the grassroots work we’ve done across the country to give every loving couple the same rights – and a shot of momentum to continue that work.

The trial also showed that the other side remains as ferocious as ever. Not content with simply defending Prop. 8, they tried to persuade the judge to stop California state agencies from recognizing the marriages of the 18,000 same-sex couples who tied the knot in the months before Prop. 8 passed.

So without question, the forces of bigotry will appeal this ruling. After the Court of Appeals, this case could very well end up before the highest court in the land – just another reason we must fight to get fair-minded judges like Elena Kagan on the Supreme Court.

We know we will prevail in the end. Because we are on the right side of history and the law. Because public opinion is increasingly in our favor. Because even conservatives like Ted Olson – who argued for the George W. Bush side in Bush v. Gore – share a passion for this cause.

But it will take more sacrifice and more grueling hard work. It will take more people like you standing up for what you believe – and more heroes like the plaintiffs in this case refusing to accept second-class status.

Thanks for your continued support on this defining issue.

Sincerely,

Joe Solmonese
Joe Solmonese
President

The Pentagon and DADT


UNDER THE RADAR

JUSTICE — PENTAGON TRIES TO ADDRESS DADT SURVEY PRIVACY CONCERNS WITH ‘CERTIFICATE OF CONFIDENTIALITY’: After a copy of the Pentagon’s “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” survey was leaked last month, LGBT groups quickly condemned the survey’s questions — which ask servicemembers to speculate on the sexuality of their colleagues, as “derogatory and insulting.” At the time of the questionnaire’s release, the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network (SLDN) warned gay and lesbian soldiers against participating, citing privacy concerns. “While the surveys are apparently designed to protect the individual’s privacy, there is no guarantee of privacy and DOD has not agreed to provide immunity to service members whose privacy may be inadvertently violated or who inadvertently outs himself or herself,” the group said. In an attempt to allay fears and encourage gay and lesbian soldiers to participate in the Pentagon’s survey, the Department of Defense is publicizing that the private company hired to administer the survey, Westat, has obtained a Certificate of Confidentiality from the Department of Health and Human Services. According to the certificate, Westat “cannot be forced (for example by court order or subpoena) to disclose information that may identify you in any federal, state, local, civil, criminal, legislative, administrative, or other proceeding.” According to the Pentagon, the certificate would apply retroactively to anyone who has already taken the questionnaire. And more importantly, individuals would be protected from forced disclosure of their sexual orientation. Since the surveys were sent out to servicemembers last month, only 10 percent of the 400,000 “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” surveys were completed as of July 27.