Senate approves modest restrictions on filibusters

Steve Kroft discusses his impossible interview with Senate leaders who can't reach a compromise.

Updated 9:39 PM ET

WASHINGTON The tradition-laden Senate voted Thursday to modestly curb filibusters, using a bipartisan consensus rare in today's hyper-partisan climate to make it a bit harder but not impossible for outnumbered senators to sink bills and nominations, The Associated Press reported.

The rules changes were broken into two pieces and approved by votes of 78-16 and 86-9. In both roll calls, Republican opponents were joined by Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont independent who usually sides with Democrats. Many of the GOP "no" votes came from tea party-backed senators like Sens. Mike Lee, R-Utah; Rand Paul, R-Ky.; and Marco Rubio, R-Fla.

The two votes and a brief debate took less than an hour, impressively quick for the Senate. They came after a more typical day that featured a sprinkling of senators' speeches and long periods when the Senate chamber idled with no one talking, while private negotiations off the floor nailed down final details.

Earlier, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., and Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., had tentatively agreed to a plan that would make it more difficult to hold up legislation and nominations using the filibuster.

In recent years, the number of filibusters has risen dramatically. According to the Democrats, Republicans launched more than 385 filibusters since 2007, compared to 49 from 1919 to 1970.

The filibuster is legislative jargon, but in real-person terms, it is an effort to hijack legislation. It's a commonly used tactic by senators to either block legislation from coming up for debate or being voted on. In other words, there are two points in the legislative process that a single senator can filibuster, or hold up, a bill.

In the agreement between the two leaders, a filibuster could not be used to block a bill from being debated on the floor, in effect, making every vote to begin debate on a bill a 51-vote threshold, as opposed to 60 votes when a bill is being filibustered. With the Democrats having fewer than 60 votes (55 this year, 53 last year) it was very difficult to begin debate on a filibustered bill. The new agreement, however, allows senators to be able to filibuster final passage of a bill, which would force a 60-vote threshold to move on to final passage.

Until now, use of the filibuster has been a common frustration among the majority party in the Senate - currently the Democrats, though Republicans, when they were the majority were equally as frustrated - as the minority party would often block bills they didn't like or to push their hand on a completely unrelated demand.

In exchange, the minority party would now receive the opportunity to offer two amendments to alter a bill. This appeases the Republicans who often complained that Reid would not allow them any say in the amendment process.

Another significant difference is that a senator would have to file the filibuster in person. This is a change from the current rules where a senator could, for example, be visiting troops in Afghanistan and filibuster a piece of legislation in Washington. Finally, judicial confirmations would be voted on after two hours of debate, instead of 30.

The agreement comes after months of threats by Reid to ram through dramatic changes to Senate procedures, including an idea that would require the filibustering senator to stay on the floor of the Senate and talk for the entire length of the filibuster, a la Jimmy Stewart's famous filibuster scene in the 1939 film "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington."

The agreement disappoints the most enthusiastic proponents of filibuster reform. A coalition of progressive groups said the agreement is "a missed opportunity" and "[does] not go nearly far enough to deliver meaningful change."

"We need to make some charges in the way we operate," Sen. Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, said on the Senate floor today. He is one of a trio of senators who pushed for dramatic filibuster reforms, backing the "talking filibuster" and other changes that would have put the onus of blocking legislation on the minority to find 41 senators to agree instead of the majority party having to find 60 senators to overcome a filibuster.

[hillzagain]

qyeteye replies:
Yes, the will of the people, as expressed by the vote, has been circumvented by an effort to make Obama a one term President.
_________________________

Study history or the Framers much qyet?

The "will" of the people is capricious (look the word up, educate yourself). They vote frequently with their emotions. The Framers knew this.

The Framers constructed a system of checks and balance such that no one party or branch of government would wield too much power over the rest, and thus leave room for fanatics to destroy our wonderful system of government.

You evidently skipped that class, as did a lot of your lib friends. It shows. Too bad.

[AttyFAM]

The filibuster owes nothing at all to the framers or to their system of checks and balances. The filibuster grows out of the Rules of the Senate, adopted by the Senate from time to time and modified by them on the first session in January and in March.

The possibility of filibusters arose out of a Senate Rule change in 1806. But the first use of it was in 1837. Until 1917, there was no means of achieving cloture of a debate. Then the Rules were changed to allow cloture on a 2/3 vote of those voting. That rule lasted until 1949, when it became 2/3 of the Senate. In 1975 it was changed to the present rule of 3/5 of the sworn Senators.

If you can understand what Hillsagain was trying to say, please explain it to me. Thank you.

[AttyFAM]

Make that qyeteye, not Hillsagain.

[WhereisOT]

"tradition-laden Senate"
You figure screwing the American People is a Tradition...
Kinda Like being "given" blood $ from the nra....
w, lapiss (lead nut for nra) seems to be on a propaganda binge...
Many speaking events....
Next stop SLC, to further promote to morons how to really set the State a fire...

[daybrown]

Gridlock is the result of media spin keeping races as close as possible to motivate partisans to buy TV ads. Parties therefore gerrymander to ensure some wins, but in so doing, dont really have a mandate to act. Any fringe group is given attention because the emotional response, for or against, also builds ratings.

The more rational, able to examine both upsides and downsides in the search for common ground on which to support the republic- are ignored.The difficulty in responding in a timely manner to Sandy is an example of why so many, all over the political spectrum are worried, and why we all know what 'THSTF' means. Venture capital does not know where to invest because they dont see the system able to respond to unforeseen events, in large part due to gridlock.

The willingness of Obama to act and the gridlock preventing congress from interfering, is increasing the power of the imperial presidency- which we may need in a world of accellerating change, be it climate or global market. Or both. Again, media loves the debates about what risks are coming, and when arrived, what to do about them, but somebody needs to put the rubber on the road to get us moving because that's what you do when you adapt to reality.

[foo8259]

Great, now they can filibuster against limiting filibustering! When they finally tire of that, they will likely agree on a raise and a recess.

[AttyFAM]

From what words did you infer that?

[mjvwsr]

The filibuster won't go away because Prince Harry knows if the left wing of his party insists on pushing gun control he will be the minority leader in 2014. Just take a look at the seats the democrats have at risk in 2014. AL, AK, CO, IA, MI, MN, NM, SD, & WVA to name a few. All gun states.

[AttyFAM]

It's a real shame we have "gun states" at all.

[curtis41]

Filibuster rules usually benefit the minority party. That explains why the majority want to change the rules now. They certainly would oppose changing filibuster rules were they in the minority. This is much like Chinese baseball, where when the bat strikes the ball, the game rules change. Take it for what it is, this is just another end-run around the minority, much like the end run around the constitution by executive fiat, engaging the U.N. one day after the coronation of Obama, to then have the U.N. dictate U.S. firearm policies. Never could have gotten this through the front door. All this is just politics as usual, but expect it to get nastier and nastier as the term proceeds. My sense is our founders would be pretty disappointed at what is happening to our constitutional republic. Our founders had a much better grasp of human nature and the possibility of tyranny over government over the governed. Our current leaders are just not that smart.

[cntrygirl3]

I would very much have liked to have seen the reinstatement of the "in person" filibuster. I am not sure they need the 41 votes to continue a filibuster but that might be a better way to go about it. If nothing else the public needs to know exactly which senator is filibustering and which senator is blocking a nomination. This being able to just do this anonymously leads to repeated abuse and a decided lack of responsibility. At least you do not have the ridiculous rhetoric like Norquist during the republican control of the senate, urging republicans to "neuter" the democrats so they would be well behaved lap dogs. Be careful what you wish for.

[tsigili]

That puts even more power in Obama's hands.......and he becomes more powerful every day, heading straight towards dictatorship in America, and controlling every aspect of government.

[qyeteye]

Yes, the will of the people, as expressed by the vote, has been circumvented by an effort to make Obama a one term President.

That failed.

Shame Obama gets more power. Continued GOP obstruction is so much better?

[Bubba_Gump]

I must be misunderstanding the phrase: "In exchange", as in "In exchange for not forcing Republicans to actually filibuster, Democrats ALSO give Republicans two opportunities to Amend the bill."

"In exchange"??? For what?

[nearl451]

I would suppose this is as good a progress and you can expect.