May 22, 2013

You are here: Home / Archives for senate

JumpSTARTing Bipartisanship

December 15, 2010 by

As in the case of the defense authorization bill, the ratification of the new START treaty is an issue that should be both non-partisan and, therefore, bi-partisan. The expiration of this treaty means a serious defect in U.S. foreign and defense policy, namely America’s inability to inspect Russian nuclear sites. In a day and age in which we don’t even know where all of the former world’s weapons grade nuclear material currently resides, every day this treaty goes without ratification is a day in which the American people – indeed the entire global population – is put at unnecessary risk.

Some members of the Senate advocate delaying consideration of this important international agreement until the next Congress is seated. Given that ratification of this agreement will surely be seen as a win for the Obama administration, leaving its consideration to the even more hyper-partisan 112th Congress seems to be an exercise in futility.

The Senate should not wait to ratify the START treaty. It should simply put aside partisan politics and take up this important agreement in the interest of protecting American national security. But even that, these days, might be too much to expect.

Filed Under: Contributors, Defense Policy Magazine, Senior Contributors Tagged With: , , , ,

Filibuster Reform, Finally

December 13, 2010 by

For quite a while the filibuster has been used to prevent the majority from using it’s overwhelming authority to keep the minority at bay. Usually associated with a strong, media-gaining spectacle to shame wavering votes into backing down – Strom Thurmond’s 24-hour marathon filibuster against civil rights reform is among the best known – lately it has been used as a lazy means to obstruct. When legislation that is seen as controversial by the minority is introduced by the majority and there really isn’t time to deal with a full-blown, traditional filibuster threat, there is very little incentive to call the minority out and force them to read phone books or their grandma’s biscuit recipe. Instead, we get attempted cloture votes that fail time and time again.

This is why the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2011 (NDAA) failed in September and again in November, and why we’re probably going to be stuck with a continuing resolution this year with a few items on NDAA voted on as stand-alone votes. This is also a major reason why “compromise” and “middle ground” are such bad words in partisan Washington at the moment.

Enter Fix the Senate Now, an internal uprising to change filibuster rules to overcome the partisan gridlock that has defined US politics the past few years. Check out the site for more detailed info. Key to look at are the site’s 8 principles:

  1. On the first legislative day of a new Congress, the Senate may, by majority vote, end a filibuster on a rules change and adopt new rules.
  2. There should only be one opportunity to filibuster any given measure or nomination, so motions to proceed and motions to refer to conference should not be subject to filibuster.
  3. Secret “holds” should be eliminated.
  4. The amount of delay time after cloture is invoked on a bill should be reduced.
  5. There should be no post-cloture debate on nominations.
  6. Instead of requiring that those seeking to break a filibuster muster a specified number of votes, the burden should be shifted to require those filibustering to produce a specified number of votes to continue the filibuster.
  7. Those waging a filibuster should be required to continuously hold the floor and debate.
  8. Once all Senators have had a reasonable opportunity to express their views, every measure or nomination should be brought to a yes or no vote in a timely manner.

This is catching steam. However, it’s hard to see how this could build up enough momentum over the lame-duck to really accomplish its stated goal.

Filed Under: Contributors, Defense Policy Magazine, Senior Contributors Tagged With: , , , , ,

Defense Authorization Bill Needs Lame Duck Action

December 7, 2010 by

For 48 consecutive years the U.S. Congress has passed, and the President has signed, a defense authorization bill to authorize funding for new weapons systems, military research programs, troop pay raises, recruitment bonuses and other significant programs and benefits for America’s armed forces. This year, however, Congress may decide to go on an extended holiday vacation in mid-December rather than stick around to take up this important piece of annual legislation. The President, too, may decide to take off for warm, sunny Hawaii rather than stick around cold, dreary Washington to help strong-arm the bill through a weary Congress. But the work still needs to get done, and it needs to get done before anyone in Washington boards a plane for winter vacation.

Both parties are playing textbook political games with this legislation, and it needs to stop. If for the sake of just doing the right thing isn’t enough, then the fact that Americans can now see through the rhetoric-laden press statements and cheap tactical maneuvering should provide sufficient motivation. While Democratic leaders in the Senate have tried to delay striking a procedural deal with moderates as long as possible, hoping in the end to be able to blame those same moderates, Republicans have for days been holding all legislation hostage in order to coerce the Democrats into a deal on tax policy. In the end, anyone with a high school education will be able to recognize – and hopefully remember – the ridiculous games each party was willing to play while a ready-to-go defense bill sat collecting dust.

And while this circus plays out on Capitol Hill and in the media, the White House, too, continues to refuse to make any significant push on behalf of this important defense legislation. It is clear that tax cuts are currently everyone’s priority, but the prioritization of the START treaty by the White House, a bill that can still pass next year, over the defense authorization bill, which, in its current form, cannot pass next year, is quite baffling, especially given the immediate pay-off of many of the defense bill’s provisions – both literal and metaphorical.

Washington is in perpetual need of rethinking its priorities, but this is one point in time where that cliché is especially appropriate. If Congress and the President whisk themselves out of town for vacation without a defense bill having been passed and signed into law, they will deserve the public scorn that will surely follow. And if they skip town without a defense bill while trying to point fingers the whole way home, the public will see right though it.

Filed Under: Contributors, Defense Policy Magazine, Senior Contributors Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , ,
Social Buttons by Linksku