November 29, 2012 -- Updated 1514 GMT (2314 HKT)
Simple reforms to Senate procedures like
filibustering and confirmations would break up gridlock and make it a
lot easier to get things done, Sarah Binder says
November 29, 2012 -- Updated 1514 GMT (2314 HKT)
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
- Sarah Binder: Minority has always exploited filibuster rules to hang up rival proposals
- Reid's plans to reform procedures have faced tough opposition, she says
- Binder: Senate should set limits on filibuster rules that are fair to each party
- Binder: Confirmation process is glacial and contentious and needs "fast-track" option
Editor's note: Sarah
Binder is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and professor of
political science at George Washington University. She is the co-author
of "Politics or Principle? Filibustering in the United States Senate"
(Brookings 1997) and several other books on Congress.
(CNN) -- "We are now locked in a rolling filibuster
on every issue, which is totally gridlocking the U.S. Senate. That is
wrong. It is wrong for America."
Who said that? Democrat
Harry Reid, majority leader of the Senate? Guess again. Try former
Republican leader Trent Lott, bemoaning the troubled state of the Senate
in the late 1990s.
Sarah Binder
No recent majority leader
of either party has been saved the headache of trying to lead a Senate
in which minorities can exploit the rules and stymie the chamber. This
is not a new problem. Harry Reid may face a particularly unrestrained
minority. But generations of Senate leaders from Henry Clay to Bill
Frist have felt compelled to seek changes in Senate rules to make the
chamber a more governable place.
Some things never change.
Twice this week, the Senate has opened debate with its party leaders engaged in a caustic battle over Reid's plans to seek changes to Senate rules in January.
Become a fan of CNNOpinion
Stay up to date on the latest opinion, analysis and conversations through social media. Join us at Facebook/CNNOpinion and follow us @CNNOpinion on Twitter. We welcome your ideas and comments.
Reid argues that
Republicans have engaged in unprecedented levels of filibustering. GOP
leader Mitch McConnell blames what he calls Reid's weak leadership,
arguing that Republicans' parliamentary tactics are a natural response
to Reid's partisan ways.
There is no innocent
party in the parliamentary arms race that engulfs the Senate. Still,
many argue that Republicans go overboard in their willingness to exploit
Senate rules. Indeed, since 2007, Senate records show that Republicans
have filibustered or threatened to filibuster more than 360 times, a
historic record.
Reform of the Senate is
overdue. In 1997, with Republicans controlling the Senate, author Steven
Smith and I advocated reforms that sought to trim the filibuster while
preserving minority rights. Today, with Democrats in control, I again
think changes in Senate rules are due:
Senate should limit the number of motions subject to a filibuster
A top priority should be
to eliminate filibusters of the "motion to proceed" to a bill and the
three motions that are required to send a bill to conference with the
House.
When the majority seeks
to call up a bill on the floor for consideration, the leader offers a
motion to proceed. Because Senate rules deem this motion "debatable," it
takes 60 votes to cut off debate and come to a vote on the motion.
Banning the filibuster
on this motion would still allow a minority to filibuster the underlying
bill and amendments to it. But it would give a majority the right to
set the chamber's legislative agenda. The change might also rein in
senators' secret "holds" because the majority leader would no longer
need broad support to advance a bill to the floor.
Similarly, debate could
be trimmed by banning filibusters on the three steps required to send a
bill to conference with the House. Conference committees have gone the
way of the dodo bird because minorities have been willing to filibuster
the steps required to send bills to conference.
Banning such filibusters
would encourage the use of conference committees and restore the
involvement of rank-and-file senators in the process of negotiating
bicameral agreements. Senators would still retain the right to
filibuster agreements that emerged from conference.
Ratchet down the number of votes required to invoke cloture
The first cloture vote would require 60 votes, as is required under Senate rules.
If that failed, the next
vote would require 57 votes, then 54 votes, and so on, until the Senate
reached a simple majority vote for cloture. To guarantee the minority
adequate time to debate and amend bills, I would tie the number of days
of advance notice of a coming cloture vote to the number of votes
required for cloture. The fewer the votes required, the longer the
advance notice. Coupling new cloture thresholds and notice requirements
would allow the Senate to reach votes by simple majority while still
protecting the minority's parliamentary rights.
Senate should experiment with new modes of advice and consent for nominations
The confirmation process is a mess, with nominees often waiting months for hearings and confirmation votes.
The Senate should
consider new "fast-track" confirmation rules. For executive branch
appointees, the fast track might fix the length of Senate consideration,
guaranteeing a confirmation vote within, say, three months. For
judicial nominations, fast-track consideration might be given to
candidates recommended by bipartisan commissions in their home states.
If the White House
nominates a candidate approved by such a commission, the Senate would
fast-track the nominee to a confirmation vote. Fast-tracks protect the
minority's right to scrutinize presidential appointees, but ensure that
nominees are guaranteed confirmation votes within a reasonable period of
time.
Such reforms would
restore some semblance of balance to the Senate. For that reason, the
minority party is likely to oppose them. Even members of the majority
might balk at trimming their procedural rights.
That is the unfortunate
history of Senate reform: Senators rarely want to give up their
parliamentary advantages. Because changes to Senate rules can be
filibustered, efforts to reform the Senate typically crash and burn.
Under some conditions, majorities can avoid filibusters of their reform
proposals by using what senators term the "constitutional option."
But as this week's
outrage on the Senate floor suggests, the process of an overhaul can be
as explosive as the actual reform. There's no easy path. COPY http://edition.cnn.com/
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário