Fixing the Filibuster 
By Senator Tom Harkin 
From The Nation 
When people think of the filibuster, many recall the classic film Mr.  
Smith Goes to Washington. But Senator Smith—the heroic legislator played by  
Jimmy Stewart—was the little guy using the filibuster to stop the powerful  
special interests. Today, that has been turned upside down. It is the special  
interests using the filibuster to stop legislation that would benefit the 
little  guy. 
For example, despite record-high persistent unemployment, Republicans have  
repeatedly used the filibuster to kill attempts to extend benefits to the  
long-term jobless. Meanwhile, real and threatened filibusters have prevented 
 Democrats from addressing urgent national priorities, ranging from climate 
 change to immigration reform to energy transformation. 
The filibuster rule has become an absurd and destructive anachronism. As 
few  as forty-one senators, potentially representing less than 15 percent of 
the  population, have the power to block any bill, amendment or nominee. In 
other  words, America has become a representative democracy without majority 
rule.  Democrats hold large majorities in both houses of Congress and have a 
 responsibility to govern, but they lack the power to pass critical 
legislation  or confirm nominees. The party that was resoundingly repudiated at the 
polls in  2008 retains the power to prevent the majority from governing. 
Historically, the filibuster was an extraordinary tool used only in the  
rarest of instances. In 1939, the year Mr. Smith was filmed, there was  not a 
single filibuster in the Senate. In the 1950s, there was an average of one  
per two-year Congressional session. By contrast, during the last Congress  
(2007–08), 139 bills were filibustered. Already in the current Congress, 
since  January 2009, there have been more than 100 filibusters. 
The Republican abuse of the filibuster is routine and increasingly 
reckless.  As political scientist Norman Ornstein wrote in an article, "Our Broken 
Senate,"  in 2008, "The expanded use of formal rules on Capitol Hill is 
unprecedented and  is bringing government to its knees." 
The Senate cannot continue down this path of obstruction, paralysis and de  
facto minority rule. That is why I have introduced a bill to change the 
Standing  Rules of the Senate to reform the cloture procedure. 
Currently, it takes sixty votes to "invoke cloture"—in other words, to end  
debate on a legislative measure and bring it to a vote. My bill would 
permit a  decreasing number of senators to invoke cloture on a given measure. On 
the first  cloture attempt, sixty votes would be required. But, over a 
period of days or  weeks, the number of votes required would fall to a simple 
majority of fifty-one  senators. 
Under my proposal, the minority would have ample opportunity to debate an  
issue, try to shift public opinion and attempt to persuade their colleagues. 
 However, the minority would no longer have the power to brazenly block the 
 majority from legislating. In fact, my proposal would encourage a more 
robust  spirit of compromise. Right now, there is no incentive for the minority 
to  compromise; they know they have the power to block legislation. But if 
they know  that at the end of the day a bill is subject to majority vote, 
they will be more  willing to come to the table and negotiate seriously. 
In this way, we can restore the Senate to the legislative body envisioned 
by  the founders, where the minority can slow things down but cannot obstruct 
 legislation from coming to a vote. George Washington famously told Thomas  
Jefferson that the Senate's role is to "cool" legislation created in the 
House,  just as a saucer is used to cool hot tea. This role would be 
preserved. 
I am offering this reform proposal with clean hands, having introduced the  
exact same bill in 1995, when Democrats were in the minority in the Senate. 
This  legislation is not about one party or the other gaining advantage. It 
is about  the Senate, as an institution, operating more fairly, effectively 
and small-d  democratically. 
James Madison and his colleagues at the Constitutional Convention rejected 
a  requirement of a supermajority vote to pass legislation. As Alexander 
Hamilton  explained, a supermajority requirement would mean that a small 
minority could  "destroy the energy of government." Government would be, in 
Hamilton's words,  subject to the "caprice or artifices of an insignificant, 
turbulent, or corrupt  junta." I would not call the Republican minority in the 
Senate a "turbulent or  corrupt junta," but Hamilton's point is well taken. 
At issue is a fundamental principle of our democracy—rule of the majority 
in  a legislative body. I do not see how we can govern a twenty-first-century 
 superpower when a minority of just forty-one senators can dictate action—
or  inaction—not just to the majority of senators but to a majority of the 
American  people. This is not democratic. Certainly, it is not the kind of 
democracy our  founders envisioned. 


 
____________________________________
_http://www.thenation.com/article/36903/fixing-filibuster_ 
(http://www.thenation.com/article/36903/fixing-filibuster) 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe from the IOWA-TOPICS list, send any message to:
[log in to unmask]

Check out our Listserv Lists support site for more information:
http://www.sierraclub.org/lists/faq.asp

Sign up to receive Sierra Club Insider, the flagship
e-newsletter. Sent out twice a month, it features the Club's
latest news and activities. Subscribe and view recent
editions at http://www.sierraclub.org/insider/