November, 16 2012, 11:49am EDT
Brennan Center Study: Rampant Filibuster Abuse Paralyzes Senate, Proposed Reforms
WASHINGTON
Low congressional productivity in the U.S. Senate stems from a continued abuse of the filibuster, not merely divided government, a new Brennan Center report shows.
The new report, Curbing Filibuster Abuse, details the sharp rise in legislative obstruction in the Senate and offers a blueprint to curb filibuster abuse in the next Congress. It comes amid serious discussions by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and others to make filibuster reform a top priority.
"It is no secret that this Congress has had low productivity, but it is natural to blame divided government," said Michael Waldman, president of the Brennan Center for Justice. "This data shows that Senate paralysis, due to the filibuster, is a major factor crippling Congress. Rules reform could make a big difference."
Key findings include:
- The current Senate passed a record-low 2.8 percent of bills it introduced, a 66 percent decrease from 2005-2006, and a 90 percent decrease from the high in 1955-1956.
- Since 2006, the Senate filed 385 cloture motions -- the only way to forcibly end a filibuster -- greater than the total number filed between 1917 and 1988. This creates a de facto 60-vote requirement for all Senate business. It also underestimates the frequency of filibusters because it does not account for bills that are abandoned due to the mere threat of a filibuster.
- In the last three Congresses, the percentage of Senate floor activity devoted to cloture votes was 50 percent greater than any other time since at least World War II, leaving less time for consideration of substantive measures.
- On average, it has taken 188 days to confirm a judicial nominee during the current Congress, creating 32 "judicial emergencies," as designated by the Office of U.S. Courts.
"The filibuster has been transformed into a regular feature of Senate procedure, crippling not just the upper house, but the entire legislative branch of government," said Diana Kasdan, counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the report.
On the first day of the legislative session, the Standing Rules of the Senate can be amended with a simple majority vote, instead of the 67-vote threshold normally required.
"Now is the time for the Senate to act," added Jonathan Backer, research associate in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the report. "A new crop of Senate reformers, ushered in through the 2012 election, places filibuster reform within reach."
The Brennan Center's report offers multiple reform proposals, including:
- Permitting only one filibuster opportunity per measure or nomination (there are currently six such opportunities).
- Requiring at least 40 votes to sustain a filibuster (a supermajority of 60 votes is currently required to break a filibuster).
- Requiring filibustering senators to stay on the Senate floor and debate, as was true in the past.
- Giving the minority party more opportunities to offer amendments to bills (the majority often "fills the amendment tree," preventing the minority from influencing legislation and leading to more gridlock).
"Both the minority and majority parties have employed obstructionist tactics that will not be controlled until the rules that permit abuse are remedied," said Mimi Marziani, counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program and co-author of the report. "The basic reforms we outline are a start, not a finish, for the task of retooling the Senate for the 21st century."
The Brennan Center for Justice is a nonpartisan law and policy institute. We strive to uphold the values of democracy. We stand for equal justice and the rule of law. We work to craft and advance reforms that will make American democracy work, for all.
(646) 292-8310LATEST NEWS
$3 Billion From Truth Social Merger Unlikely to Fix Trump's Money Trouble
The ex-president is facing potential asset seizure if he can't post a $454 million bond for a New York fraud case.
Mar 22, 2024
Digital World Acquisition Corp. shareholders on Friday approved a merger involving former U.S. President Donald Trump's social networking platform—but a multibillion-dollar windfall from the deal isn't expected to help him with the $454 million bond he needs to post for a New York fraud case by Monday.
Trump's deal with the special purpose acquisition company (SPAC) was announced back in 2021 and finally got approval from the Securities and Exchange Commission last month. Thanks to the merger, Trump Media & Technology Group—whose primary product is Truth Social—could be trading on the stock market under the ticker symbol DJT next week.
Digital World had a $42.81 closing stock price on Thursday and Trump is set to own nearly 79 million shares, which works out to over $3 billion. However, a Wall Street provision known as a "lock-up" agreement will block Trump—the presumptive Republican presidential candidate for the November election—from swiftly ditching that stock to cover his mounting legal costs.
As The Associated Pressdetailed before the merger vote:
Investors under the lock-up deal cannot sell, lend, donate, or encumber their shares for six months after the close of the deal. Legal experts say "encumber" is a powerful word that could prevent Trump from using the stock as collateral to raise cash before six months have elapsed.
There are a few exceptions, such as by transferring stock to immediate family members. But in such cases, the recipients would also have to agree to abide by the lock-up agreement.
Experts warn that Trump selling a bunch of his Truth Social shares after the six-month mark could prove problematic.
"It's simply trading on Trump's name," Kristi Marvin, founder of the research firm SPACInsider, toldPolitico. "People aren't buying this because they like the fundamentals—they're buying this because they like Trump."
As a result of the civil fraud case launched by Democratic New York Attorney General Letitia James, Trump and his real estate company were hit with $355 million in fines last month. His adult sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, owe $4 million each, and longtime executive Allen Weisselberg was fined $1 million.
With interest, the former president owes $454 million and his sons owe $10 million. James gave Trump until March 25 to pay up. Attorneys for Trump, who is appealing, said in a Monday filing that it has been a "practical impossibility" for him to secure a bond. The attorney general is preparing to seize Trump's assets.
Trump's proceeds from the Truth Social merger could be "a ripe target for James to go after," MarketWatchnoted Thursday. Financial attorney Mark Zauderer told the outlet that "bank accounts and debts owed, [including] the proceeds of a company sale, are far more simple to freeze than, say, Trump's stake in an LLC that owns a building."
As of Friday, Forbesestimated Trump's net worth at $2.6 billion, much of which is tied up in real estate. Earlier this month, a New York Times analysis found that he has about $350 million in cash. Trump claimed on Truth Social early Friday that he has "almost" $500 million in cash.
On top of the fraud fine, a New York City jury in January awarded E. Jean Carroll $83.3 million in a judgment against Trump for defaming the journalist after she accused him of raping her at a department store in the 1990s. Trump, who is also appealing this decision, posted a $91.6 million bond provided by an insurance company in early March.
Trump faces a pair of federal criminal cases—one for his handling of classified documents and another related to his attempt to overturn his 2020 loss to Democratic President Joe Biden, who is seeking reelection. He has also been indicted in a criminal election interference case in Georgia and a hush money case in New York.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Industry's Favorite Puppets': 16 Republican States Sue to Block LNG Pause
"The GOP will go to any length to please their Big Oil donors, even if it means driving up costs for their constituents and torching the climate," one campaigner said.
Mar 22, 2024
The attorneys general of 16 Republican-led states sued on Thursday to reverse the Biden administration's pause on the approval of new liquefied natural gas export licences, a move that was widely celebrated by climate and environmental justice campaigners.
The lawsuit, backed by states including Texas, Louisiana, and Florida, comes after the Republican-led House of Representatives also voted to reverse the halt on licences.
"The GOP will go to any length to please their Big Oil donors, even if it means driving up costs for their constituents and torching the climate," Jamie Henn of Fossil Free Media told Common Dreams. "This is just more performative politics from the industry's favorite puppets."
"LNG exports are key to expanding fossil fuel production in the U.S."
In its January decision, the White House said it was pausing Department of Energy sign-offs on new LNG exports to non-free trade agreement countries so that the department could review the criteria it used to assess them, including the exports' impact on domestic energy prices and their contribution to the climate crisis. The move put the breaks on nearly 20 planned new export terminals along Louisiana's Gulf Coast, which would have released equivalent emissions to 675 coal plants and added to the pollution burden placed on local communities by the fossil fuel industry.
However, the attorneys general behind the lawsuit argue that the pause would harm their states and communities that rely on the gas industry for income, as well as the industry itself. They also claim that it is illegal under the Natural Gas Act, and that the "whims of activists cannot override" the act's mandate that the energy secretary must approve LNG exports unless they deem they are not in the public interest. Opponents of the LNG buildout have long contended that the new approvals are not in fact in the public interest given their contributions to the climate crisis, local pollution, and higher energy prices.
The lawsuit further contends that the pause violates the Administrative Procedures Act and a Supreme Court order that agencies not act on "major questions" without approval from Congress.In addition to a reversal of the pause, it calls on the court to "preliminarily and permanently" bar the federal government from "halting or attempting to halt the consideration of LNG export applications."
Anne Rolfes, executive director of the frontline advocacy group the Louisiana Bucket Brigade, countered the attorney generals' narrative that gas exports were good for local communities.
"The decision to sue the Biden Administration for protecting Louisiana from the gas export industry is in direct conflict with the urgent needs of those of us who live in Louisiana, especially the fishermen of Cameron Parish," Rolfes said.
Rolfes called the industry an "existential threat" to the livelihoods of small-scale fisherman, who cannot fish while LNG tankers crowd them out of their grounds. She also said the increased terminal construction threatened wetlands that protect the coast from hurricanes and other storms, arguing that the administration of Gov. Jeff Landry was "siding with an industry that is bulldozing storm protections, pouring cement on our coast, and killing our state's seafood industry."
Rolfes added: "The right thing to do is to be on the side of Louisiana fishermen and ordinary people. The Landry administration should sue the gas export industry for damage to fisheries and fully compensate the fisherman. Our culture, our coast, and our future depend on it."
The suit to reverse the LNG pause was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Louisiana, with the attorneys general of Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Kansas, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming joining those of Texas, Florida, and Louisiana.
"The GOP pushback on this is a good reminder of what a big deal this announcement was," Henn said of the suit.
"LNG exports are key to expanding fossil fuel production in the U.S.," he continued, adding that President Joe Biden "did the right thing standing up to Big Oil and we don't expect to see him back down now."
Keep ReadingShow Less
In 24-1 Vote, Hawaii State Senate Demands Permanent Cease-Fire in Gaza
"Hawaii can be proud of its leadership role in carrying the movement to force an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza to the 'state' level," said one advocate.
Mar 22, 2024
In a near-unanimous vote, Hawaii's Senate on Thursday became the first state legislative body in the U.S. to endorse a permanent cease-fire in the Gaza Strip, adding to the mounting domestic pressure on President Joe Biden to force an end to Israel's monthslong assault.
The Hawaii Senate, which is dominated by Democrats, voted 24-1 to approve a resolution urging U.S. President Joe Biden and members of the state's congressional delegation to "publicly call for an immediate and permanent cease-fire in Gaza and continue negotiations for lasting peace."
State Sen. Kurt Fevella (R-20) was the lone no vote on the resolution.
Fatima Abed, founder of the Hawaii-based advocacy group Rise for Palestine, said in a statement Friday that the resolution's passage was a "monumental accomplishment, and Hawaii can be proud of its leadership role in carrying the movement to force an immediate, permanent cease-fire in Gaza to the 'state' level."
"But it is only the first step in a long road to peace and the promise of liberty and the equal rights Palestinians deserve," Abed added.
In testimony supporting the cease-fire resolution, advocacy groups estimated that Hawaii residents contribute roughly $13 million per year in federal taxes that are used to aid Israel's military, which has killed at least 32,000 people in Gaza in less than six months.
The Hawaii Senate's move came hours before Russia, China, and Algeria voted down a U.S.-led U.N. Security Council resolution that described a cease-fire as "imperative" but did not explicitly call for an end to the bloodshed. The three nations that opposed the resolution said they did so because the U.S. measure did not clearly demand a cease-fire.
According to a recent Reutersanalysis, dozens of U.S. city councils have passed resolutions calling for a cease-fire in Gaza as Israel's continued bombing and obstruction of aid fuel one of the worst humanitarian crises in modern history.
As of last week, at least 78 members of Congress have called for a cease-fire in Gaza, a running tally by the Working Families Party shows.
Hawaii's two Democratic senators, Mazie Hirono and Brian Schatz, have both expressed support for a temporary cease-fire in the Gaza Strip—a call that falls short of the Hawaii Senate's demand.
The other two members of Hawaii's U.S. congressional delegation—Democratic Reps. Ed Case and Jill Tokuda—have not called for a cease-fire.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular