|
 |
 |
|
Harkin disputes comparison between filibuster reform, 2005
Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), a top proponent of reforming the Senate’s filibuster rules, on Wednesday rejected any comparison between his proposal and the 2005 Senate fight over the issue.
Harkin told The Hill it is “absolutely true” that Democrats could change the voting rules by simply adopting a new set of rules for the 112th Congress next January. Vice President Joe Biden, who is Senate president, could adopt the rules with a simple majority of 51 votes, as Democrats are likely to have.
Harkin disputed the idea that doing so would be similar to the so-called “nuclear option” that former Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) considered in 2005 to move Bush administration judicial nominees through the chamber. Democrats including Sen. Harry Reid (Nev.) and then-Sen. Barack Obama heavily criticized the move, and the Senate’s so-called “Gang of 14” eventually forced Frist to back down.
Frist pursued the idea in the middle of a congressional session, which Harkin said he wouldn’t support. And he said the filibuster has been so abused in recent years that any comparison to the 2005 controversy is inaccurate.
“It’s not nuclear,” Harkin said. “It can be done. It must be done. It has to be done. Otherwise things will continue to be dysfunctional. ... We’re not going to do anything until January. I am opposed to changing the rules in the middle of the game. When you come in for the next Congress, that’s different. You adopt rules, so everyone knows the rules to play by for the next two years.”
A Hill survey this week discovered there are at least 10 Democrats in the current Congress who are reluctant to change the filibuster rules to lower the necessary threshold of 60 votes for procedural motions.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) later Wednesday acknowledged the idea of adopting new rules next January has been discussed.
“It would be a departure. I’m not going to rule it out or in,” Durbin said. “It’ll be a subject of conversation as we organize for the next Congress. … I would really want to take it to the caucus. But there is a high level of frustration and a feeling that we’ve missed many opportunities. And a lot of us have really been worn down by the requirement of getting 60 votes. This was rare when I got here 14 years ago, and now it is rare otherwise.”
Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) presided over a Rules Committee hearing Wednesday morning on filibuster reform and later told The Hill he will wait to decide a particular strategy until at least September, after his committee finishes the sixth and final hearing on the issue. Wednesday’s hearing was the fourth.
Harkin also disagreed that Democrats could come to regret such a move, if the party loses control of the chamber in 2012 or 2014. He noted that when he first proposed the idea, Democrats were in the minority.
“I come into this with clean hands,” he said. “When I first proposed it in 1995, everyone thought I was crazy. Well, no, I’m not. I said, ‘Mark my words, it’s going to get worse in the future.’ And my predictions have come true. I don’t care if I’m in the minority. The majority party has got to be able to put its program through, with respect to the minority so they have the ability to offer amendments and maybe even slow things down a little.
“The majority of the American people would be outraged if they understood that a minority here determines what I can vote on, or even if I can vote.”
Under Harkin’s bill, which is co-sponsored by Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), 60 votes would still be necessary to cut off debate on an initial procedural motion. If senators failed to reach 60 votes, a second vote would be possible two days later that would require only 57 votes to cut off debate. If that also failed, a third vote two days after that would require 54 votes to end debate. A fourth vote after two more days would require just 51 votes.
Most Viewed RSS Feed »
