Since coming to Congress, I have been fighting to end the paralysis in the Senate by reforming the filibuster. In the time I have been here, I have heard from tens of thousands of Oregonians who are frustrated that important legislation is blocked without debate and with no senator held accountable for the inaction. Because the current form of the filibuster allows any senator to object to ending debate on a bill silently, an objection that can only be overcome with a supermajority of 60 votes, the filibuster has become a partisan tool for blocking the majority's agenda rather than a principled stand by a senator defending core values.
That is why I have been making the case across Oregon and the country for a "talking filibuster," which would simply require a senator who demands more debate to in fact be in the Senate chamber debating. In other words, if a senator chooses to block a bill that has the support of a majority of senators, I believe he or she should at least make the case before the American people, and if no senator is on the floor debating, then the debate should end and a vote held.
This is one Oregonian who does not want you to materially change the Senate rules. One of the reasons the laws should not be changed is that you cannot be trusted. Who is accountable now for budgets not being voted on, or debated in the Senatemfor the last three-plus years? The Republicans? No, it is the Senate Majority leader, Harry Reid. Who is accountable for decisions to not allow amendments or debates on legislation? The Republicans? They can't make the Senate rules. But Harry Reid can. Is he accountable? If so, to whom? You don't need a filibuster to block legislation, you have Harry Reid. What were his core values in blocking discussions, debates, and amendments, and votes to legislation before the Senate?
It has been reported that Harry Reid wants to be able to change bills, by removing or adding items, after the Senate has already voted on the bill. And these changes would not be voted on by the Senate. How is that kind of tyrannical action beneficial to the people of the United States? He would be unaccountable to anyone. Not the people, nor to the Senate (he is the leader of the Senate, who does he answer to?). To do what he pleases when he pleases is by almost any definition tyranny.
You are aware that the House of Representatives or the Senate were designed by the writers of the Constitution to be a means of deliberating on and blocking laws that are not in the best interest of the United States. Bills need to get a full hearing, from majority and the minority. pThe Senate is where 'bills are sent to die'. The House and the Senate are not designed to rush laws through. Laws that are not debated, not considering both the majority and minority opinions, are often seriously flawed - two recent examples are Obamacare, and the Dodd-Frank law. The unintended consequences of these pieces of legislation are showing up every week.
The 'talking filibuster' one point on which I agree with you. I believe the Senate rule change that moved the filibuster from a talking one to a technical one was put forth by a Democrat. If you as a Senator wish to filibuster, either alone or with other Senators, then you should have to be one the floor of the Senate talking. The filibuster has always been a partisan tool - can you make a case for, or give an example of a bi-partisan filibuster?
He continues...
As you may know, on January 24, 2013, the Senate made several reforms to its rules to help move legislation more efficiently through the chamber. Specifically, the new reforms create tools that can limit the ability of individual senators to block bills from coming to the floor, and they will make it less time-consuming to confirm the President's nominees.
The new rules fell short of what I had proposed, and did not include a "talking filibuster" requirement. However, I am proud that the Senate took the steps that it did. These are the most substantive changes to Senate rules in decades. Moreover, senators from both parties sent a clear message that the current gridlock and dysfunction is unacceptable, and showed their determination to fix the Senate. If these modest steps do not sufficiently address the dysfunction in the Senate, many senators are determined to fight for stronger solutions, and I am ready to continue leading that fight...
It is understood that the Senate can make its own rules for considering legislation. But making rules that will limit the ability of the minority party to have its voice heard will not serve the nation well. That is what concerns me. To this point, at least for the last six years, the period of the reign by Harry Reid, the Senate has not been a deliberative, debating body. You, the Democrats, led by Harry Reid have not listened to the people of the United States, or to the minority party.
A recent poll of American citizens indicated that we do not trust the government to act in our best interests. That includes the Senate. You, the Democrats, are definitely a significant part of the mistrust shown in the poll. A lack of transparency, both in the Senate and the Administration ("the most transparent...) fuels the mistrusts. For me, whenever I hear any Democrat talk about transparency, I grab my wallet because I know it will be under attack. The transparency ruse is like watching a 'magician' - you're attention is continually drawn away because you are watching the wrong hand. So it is with the Democrats. You say one thing, but do another, all the while creating the misdirection under the guise of transparency. Again you are not to be trusted, in the Senate, or with our lives.
***
- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad
Location:Where? When?
