Tip:
Highlight text to annotate it
X
You thought the Republicans' unprecedented used the filibuster in recent years has
made it difficult for Democrats to get things done. You thought the near constant
threat a filibuster created a world in Washington where sixty is the new
fifty-one. Where the minority is the new majority.
Just imagine what it's going to be like in the next Congress. In a version of
Washington where
not only is the Republican filibuster assumed, but
where the two people perhaps best known as Republican moderates are getting
behind a repeal ObamaCare lawsuit.
Where Democrats will need seven Republican votes to break a filibuster.
Foreget the lame duck session.
How are we going to get anything done over the course of the next two years?
Joining us now is someone with a plan an answer to that - Senator Tom Udall,
Democrat of New Mexico, a member of the Senate Rules Committee. Senator, thanks so
much for being here. I hope you bring optimism and cheer.
Thank you. I bring holiday cheer anyway. Ok Senator Udall in Jauary of last
year you came out with a plan to reform the filibuster in a column in
the Huffington Post, that basically involves voting on the rules in the beginning of
this next Congress in January to change it.
How is that plan coming along?
Well Chris, as you know it's a two-step process really. What we're
talking about
is on the constitutional option. Is at the beginning of every Congress, every
two years, the Senate has authority under the Constitution, under Article One,
to move forward by and adopt rules, and amend rules that are in
place. And that part of it is moving well. I intend
at the beginning of the next Congress, on the first day, this will be January 5th,
to offer a motion
to adopt the rules of the 112th Congress. The more diffucult part
and kind of the second step, Chris, is the part of what do the
51 Senators see if - and this is a 51-vote, what-
it's a majority vote. What do the 51 Senators want to be the new rules
that we put in place? And that's what were working on in our Democratic Caucus
right now. And I
am hopeful, I am hopeful that we're going to
come up with a set of rules that'll make the filibuster more transparent, that
will shift the burden to the people that are filibustering
and then really encourage Senators who are filibustering
to be on the floor, require them to be on the floor. So...
that's what we're looking at
suggests yet were clear here
uh... so-so folks understand, you know, we have the current status quo, which I
think everyone agrees dysfunctional.
There's the total extreme option, which is no filibuster of any kind. It sounds to me
like you're saying, there are some places you can change the procedure in the
rules, that puts us some where in between those two. A kind of mend it, don't end it
approach.
Well, they - and that's really, it seems to me, where
our caucus and even some of the Republicans are coming out.
You may remember uh...
Dan Coates, who was a U.S. Senator. He actually said
on the motion to proceed, this is at the beginning of the bill,
that what we ought to do is is allow the majority to move ahead and
get onto a bill and we shouldn't filibuster on the motion to proceed. That
was something that was very positive to me. And I - and I think within our caucus
there's some support for that. I don't know that there's a majority today,
but i think we're working on it. There's two arguments that
people make about this. And one of them is
well, Senator Udall wouldn't be doing this if you were in the minority. And
there are people on the progressive side who look around say, great, we're gonna pass
this big health care reform bill when we have this very robust filibuster, and then
we're gonna get rid of those filibuster rules and make it easier to repeal it.
I wonder how you respond to this notion of kind of looking very short-term to
kind of capture the gains that you've made, how you argue people past that?
Well I think the first issue
that you've outlined there is really the one - shall we move forward
in a every Congress, at the begining of the Congress, to take a look
at the rules? It doesn't mean
we need to throw all the rules out. But we should take a hard look at how the
rules have been utilized. And in this particular case we know that'd there has
been unprecedented obstruction. Almost everything require 60 votes. And yet
the Republicans and the Republican leadership that do this
are not held accountable. What we're going to try to do in those rule changes is
expose them to bring them out
of the shadows, to all the secrecy that's going on with filibusters
to to bring it out in the open and allow people to know who it is that's
holding up the show on these particular bills.
And I think that
that should be done at the beginning of every Congress. And it
doesn't matter
who is in the majority. It makes us more accountable. You can imagine if you go
through two years
and you adopt rules and they're not working
and you know that they can be changed if you're abusing them,
you're more accountable. And my argument is-is about accountability
not about majority/minority battles that
are constantly going on. And I think that's the important thing to
focus on. Senator Tom Udall.