Parliamentarians

Really, somebody should get Tom Daschle or another well seasoned Senate parliamentarian into the blogosphere to consult us amateurs on the arcana of Congressional procedure. I think a lot of the confusion about today's news stems from the fact that the word "filibuster" has both a general and specific meaning. Generally, when people say "filibuster" they mean "obstruction by peripheral parliamentary tactic." Specifically, a filibuster is the indefinitely long stand the minority takes against advancement of a bill that--in its final form--it finds objectionable.

Keeping in mind, then, that I might be very, very wrong (hint, send Congressional procedure books!), here's how I understand the filibusteresque thing happening in the Senate right now. In general, a bill on the floor of the Senate is subjected to amendments pursuant to one of a handful of procedures (the so-called amendment trees). If members of the minority are unhappy with a bill, they can call for amendment after amendment to indefinitely extend the length of debate. If the he thinks he can get 60 votes, the majority leader can end this debate by holding a cloture vote. If that's effective (i.e. cloture is invoked), then the bill in that ultimate form goes to the floor for a standard majority debate. If, on the other hand, his cloture vote fails, he can either let the amendments keep rolling in, pull the bill completely, or hold a 30 hour debate on the bill... which is what we're seeing now. At the end of that stretch--if it goes on that long--I believe that the minority is left with a choice: up or down vote on the floor, or hold a genuine, unlimited filibuster. Somebody please pitch in and clarify and correct, though. It's notably sad how little anybody in journalism or the blogosphere seems to know about this.

On a semi-related note, in the face of so much obstructionism by the GOP this year, I'm a little bit unsure why Reid doesn't use a technique called "filling the amendment tree" more often. This is pretty deep in the weeds, and the procedure is widely disrespected in the body of the Senate. But the way it works is that, using his prerogative as leader of the Senate, Reid can offer amendments at the outset of debate on a bill in such a way that he precludes all other amendments. This is a sort of brute-force way of pushing the minority to either accept the bill or go straight to a genuine filibuster. Basically--because the Senate body is supposed to be a deliberative body and because they fear political reprisals--all of the Senate leaders have spoken out against deploying this tactic as a standard practice. I have only the slightest amount of respect for the former objection, but the latter really baffles me. If the public doesn't understand what cloture is, they certainly don't understand what "filling the amendment tree" is, and inasmuch as it would help Reid get around the unending cloture votes, it seems like this would be worth the I suspect incredibly minor political costs. 

Comments

[JimPortlandOR]

A couple of add-ons:

Robert Byrd resurrected the 'filling the tree' thing from 19th century practice - I believe when he was majority leader. He's the ultimate source of lore and strategy on Senate Rules. Having a friend on his staff is probably the only way of getting reliable info on anything complicated.

I think you neglected to mention another use of a filibuster-like technique. Before the Senate can even start a debate on a bill, there must be either unanimous consent to proceed, or someone must offer a motion. Usually the price of finally getting unanimous consent is a bargain made on the unique rules that will be observed for that particular bill - things like how much time on each side, number of amendments, and the degree of amendments, etc.

However, I believe that a motion to proceed to debate a bill (if unanimous consent isn't reached) can be filibustered, so that the bill is not considered for debate unless 3/5ths (60 votes) agree. And the cloture rules and Rule 22 apply to this a well.

The Senate Rules are really a rat's nest. No human can be expected to understand them all, so when someone understands some of them well enough they can be dangerous (or helpful, of course). Byrd fits into that category, but he's getting feeble such to not rise to the occasion that often anymore.

Mitch McConnell, the now minority leader, is utterly amoral, proved over the years. He will outright lie about things with the most innocent look and tone. And he likes to use the rules to his side's advantage, and denounce the use of the rules when its not. He's the famous user of 'up or down' vote, except when he doesn't want an up or down vote. Crooks and Liars has Dick Durbin yesterday doing a very rare personal takedown of McConnell on the Senate floor. I'm surprised Durbin could get away with it, but much overdue.