WASHINGTON — As the U.S. Senate convenes for a new session, lawmakers confront the question of whether to scrap the best-known parliamentary tactic of delay and obstruction — the filibuster.
Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, is a longtime critic of Senate filibusters, saying they interfere with the legislative branch's ability to operate effectively.
“The Senate is dysfunctional,” Harkin told The World-Herald on Tuesday. “You can't run a 21st century superpower with 19th century archaic rules.”
A modern filibuster bears little or no resemblance to the 1939 movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” in which Jimmy Stewart keeps talking to hold the Senate floor until he collapses.
In the modern era, the minority party's leadership typically objects to moving forward on legislation, and the only way for the majority to overcome the objection is to file a cloture motion, which requires 60 votes.
In the single digits for many years, the number of cloture motions filed started climbing in the 1970s. After Democrats regained the Senate majority in 2007, filibusters jumped to an all-time high of 139 in the 2007-08 session. The 2009-10 session saw 136 cloture motions.
To Democrats, the sky-high numbers are the result of Republican Party discipline combined with a political calculation that the GOP stood to benefit by opposing everything.
Republicans say all those cloture votes illustrate how Democrats sought to prematurely end debates and shut down the minority's opportunity to change legislation.
Harkin praised some of the newest Democrats in the Senate, such as Tom Udall of New Mexico, who want to make it harder to throw up procedural obstacles to legislation. One suggestion — require senators to actually take the floor when they filibuster.
For his part, Harkin is making a renewed push for his own idea, first proposed in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority.
His plan would require 60 votes on the first cloture vote, 57 on the second, 54 on the third and finally a simple majority on the fourth. Such a system would allow the minority to delay legislation by perhaps a couple of weeks — but not derail it.
Harkin says he realizes the move would mean that if Republicans capture a majority of the Senate in the future, they could more easily push through legislation that he strongly opposes.
“Elections should have consequences,” Harkin said.
Harkin said he expects the Senate to begin debating the subject Wednesday, but a vote probably won't come until later this month.
Some Senate Republicans have decried the attacks on filibusters as a “power grab” by Democrats and contrary to the traditions of what they describe as the world's greatest deliberative body.
“Changing the rules of the Senate for the sole purpose of making it easier for one party to force legislation through with a slim partisan majority undermines the original intent and purpose of the Senate as a protector of minority rights,” said Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb.
“The House was designed to advance the will of the majority, while the unique character of the Senate ensures that Nebraska and other small states have a voice.”
Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, said the filibuster ensures a fair debate and opportunity for amendments.
“The Senate filibuster protects the rights of the minority and the minority point of view,” Grassley said.
All of the returning Senate Democrats signed a letter last year to Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., calling for him to take steps to end “abuses” of the rules.
Still, Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., has cautioned against turning the Senate into a place where simple majority rules. Nelson, at the end of 2009, cast the 60th and deciding vote to advance the health care overhaul past a GOP filibuster.
“The last thing we need to do is start changing rules, with 51 votes and simple majority, and make the Senate a smaller version of the House,” Nelson said. Filibusters are not allowed in the U.S. House, where majority rules.
Harkin said that allowing the minority to dictate legislative outcomes stands the U.S. Constitution on its head. He said those in the minority should have a chance to slow things down and have their voices heard, but at some point the majority should be able to make a decision and pass legislation.
Harkin said resistance to his proposal among his fellow Democrats largely comes from older members who want to go back to the way the Senate was 30 years ago, when the body was less polarized and there were fewer filibusters.
“That's like wishing to go back to Ozzie and Harriet days — it's not going to happen,” Harkin said.
Contact the writer:
402-444-1304, joe.morton@owh.com
