One of the reasons federal Chesapeake Bay cleanup legislation was derailed in the last Congress was because of the threat of a Senate filibuster.
Not that a filibuster of the Chesapeake Clean Water Act actually happened, mind you. No Senator was forced to stand up at the podium, in front of the television cameras, and argue all through the night, waving his hands in the air, claiming that clean water would be bad for America.
Such a display would have been interesting to watch –- and educational for voters. But it never happened. And yet the mere threat of it was disturbingly powerful. The Senate on Wednesday is scheduled to start a debate over altering this weird situation, in which the threat of talking something to death can prove deadly without a word ever being uttered.
Here's why we should care about this seemingly minor procedural issue in the Chesapeake Bay region. A Senate committee last year voted unanimously to approve the Chesapeake Clean Water Act, perhaps he most important environmental legislation of this generation. The bill would have substantially increased the federal funds available for cleaning up the nation's largest estuary and held Chesapeake Bay area state governments accountable for their plans to reduce pollution. The bill then became part of an omnibus Great Outdoors Act that enjoyed broad support.
But, unfortunately in the modern Senate, almost any bill needs 60 votes necessary to advance, to overcome a threatened filibuster or other procedural hurdles. And the Chesapeake Clean Water Act fell a few votes short of that difficult 60 vote standard.
The problem is this: The U.S. Constitution does not say that 60 votes (as opposed to a simple majority) are needed for the Senate to pass a bill. That number is set by Senate procedural rules. And increasingly over the last three decades, lawmakers have taken advantage of those rules to allow a mere warning of a filibuster to gum up the works by demanding 60 votes. To see a Senate chart showing how common the practice has become, click here.
On Wednesday, Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico has said he will introduce into the Senate a proposed reform of the filibuster. You can read this article in The New York Times or this piece in Grist to learn more about the proposals and the debate over them.
Walter Mondale, the former Vice President, published an opinion piece in The New York Times on Saturday arguing that at least requiring filibustering senators to speak publicly against the bill they oppose -– to actually filibuster, in other words -– would be a step forward.
“Requiring a filibustering senator to actually speak on the Senate floor for the duration of a filibuster would help,” Mondale wrote. “So, too, would reforms that bring greater transparency — like eliminating the secret ‘holds’ that allow senators to block debate anonymously. Our country faces major challenges — budget deficits, high unemployment and two wars, to name just a few — and needs a functioning legislative branch to address these pressing issues."
I would add to that list that our country also faces major environmental challenges -– from global warming to Chesapeake Bay cleanup -– that also require a functioning legislative branch.
What do you think about this debate? Give me your opinion, at whatever length you’d like. I dare you to actually filibuster me (don't just threaten a filibuster).
By Tom Pelton
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Comments