A Post-Nuclear Senate Wouldn’t Be So Bad, Really

A narrow limit on the filibuster isn’t just good for the president’s nominees. It means a better functioning government and a more open calendar for real legislative action.

National Journal
Matt Berman
Add to Briefcase
See more stories about...
Matt Berman
Nov. 7, 2013, midnight

It’s late Decem­ber, 2013, and the Sen­ate is ex­cited for Christ­mas. But be­fore flee­ing Wash­ing­ton for the de­lights of stock­ings and yule, the Sen­ate has to reck­on with Mel Watt, Obama’s nom­in­ee for the Fed­er­al Hous­ing Fin­ance Agency who failed to be con­firmed in late Oc­to­ber. Just like last time, the con­firm­a­tion vote is largely split by party: 57-41.

But this time, in the post-nuc­le­ar Sen­ate, Watt is con­firmed. Be­cause now you don’t need a fili­buster-proof, 60-vote ma­jor­ity to con­firm an ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­ee. You need 51. And just like that, you have a mildly bet­ter func­tion­ing le­gis­lature thanks to Harry Re­id’s de­cision to change the rules, al­low­ing a simple ma­jor­ity vote to end a fili­buster of ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­a­tions.

Okay, no hy­per-tar­geted H-bomb has ac­tu­ally hit the Sen­ate. But back in the real world, after Watt’s nom­in­a­tion was scuttled, Sen­ate Demo­crats (and their Team Cap­tain Emer­it­us Joe Biden) began again sound­ing the nuc­le­ar alarm, send­ing Sen­ate tra­di­tion­al­ists in­to full duck-and-cov­er. Con­tra the fear-monger­ers, a nuc­le­ar op­tion that just al­ters the way the Sen­ate ap­proves ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­ees won’t be spawn­ing any su­per-powered Cruzi­an mutants. But it could cre­ate a Sen­ate where le­gis­la­tion has more space to breathe, and it would give a big re­lief to the agen­cies that have been plagued by high-level va­can­cies.

Fili­bus­ter­ing ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­ees doesn’t just muck up Con­gress. It makes the whole ex­ec­ut­ive branch hazy. Take a look at the State De­part­ment, where a le­gion of po­s­i­tions needs to be con­firmed by the Sen­ate. This May, 16 of the top 59 jobs in the de­part­ment were va­cant. Many of those re­main va­cant. This isn’t just the Sen­ate’s fault, as many open­ings don’t have a nom­in­ee. But the in­tense vet­ting pro­cess that a 60-vote re­quire­ment cre­ates is at least par­tially re­spons­ible for the ex­treme slow­down. “I have a new ap­pre­ci­ation for how much the con­firm­a­tion pro­cess has be­come a polit­ic­al foot­ball in re­cent years,” John Kerry told The New York Times, “and what that forces on the vet­ting pro­cess re­quired to an­nounce nom­in­ees.”

In the case of Mel Watt, this pro­cess grates on not just the FHFA, but also on hous­ing re­form ad­voc­ates wait­ing for someone new to take the reins. The Watt hold-up is “cata­stroph­ic for work­ing class Amer­ic­ans,” says Na­tion­al Com­munity Re­in­vest­ment Co­ali­tion pres­id­ent John Taylor. Taylor is no fan of the cur­rent FHFA act­ing head and the un­cer­tainty sur­round­ing Watt’s nom­in­a­tion clouds the policy pic­ture that his or­gan­iz­a­tion is so tied to.

Less time spent on nom­in­a­tion fights also would free up time for ac­tu­al le­gis­la­tion. Sure, it might not mean more le­gis­la­tion will be passed, as that surely isn’t get­ting easi­er any­time soon. But more time could mean more bills, which would help free ex­ist­ing bills from a nev­er-end­ing bar­rage of amend­ments. In the fili­buster-everything Sen­ate, “so few bills come to the floor that every­body views each bill as the last life­boat get­ting ready to sail off in­to the ho­ri­zon,” former Sen. Murkowski staff dir­ect­or McK­ie Camp­bell re­cently told Na­tion­al Journ­al. That res­ults in loads of pet policies get­ting tossed onto bills, of­ten doom­ing the whole pro­ject (see: the re­cent en­ergy bill). By open­ing up the cal­en­dar, the Sen­ate could have time for a few more life­boats, help­ing bi­par­tis­an bills ac­tu­ally get passed.

And get­ting stuff passed is ex­actly what Amer­ic­ans would like to see. People may not agree on what they want the Sen­ate to turn in­to law, but in a re­cent Gal­lup poll, 59 per­cent of re­spond­ents said they were peeved with par­tis­an grid­lock and gen­er­al con­gres­sion­al in­ef­fect­ive­ness.

Cer­tainly, the post-nuc­le­ar Sen­ate won’t be too ef­fi­cient. The le­gis­lat­ive fili­buster will live on. And there’s no real reas­on to think that your mild-mannered sen­at­or will des­cend in­to curd­ling, le­gis­lat­ive mad­ness just by eas­ing up on ex­ec­ut­ive nom­in­a­tions. “I don’t buy the ar­gu­ment that the Sen­ate would look like the House,” says George Wash­ing­ton Uni­versity pro­fess­or and Sen­ate-afi­cion­ado Sarah Bind­er.

The rule change also won’t mean that Obama can just nom­in­ate any­one he’d like to ex­ec­ut­ive po­s­i­tions. When sen­at­ors are really, truly con­cerned about a nom­in­ee, they can kill the con­firm­a­tion without re­sort­ing to a fili­buster. Take the case of Ron Binz, Obama’s nom­in­ee to the Fed­er­al En­ergy Reg­u­lat­ory Com­mis­sion. Binz’s nom­in­a­tion was with­drawn this fall after he en­countered bi­par­tis­an dis­ap­prov­al be­fore mak­ing it out of com­mit­tee.

Even if Obama did de­cide to nom­in­ate Bill De Bla­sio as his Sec­ret­ary of Re­dis­tri­bu­tion, that could be a good thing for our polit­ic­al sys­tem. “If we deny the pres­id­ent the right to pick the people he feels he needs,” says former Utah Re­pub­lic­an Sen­at­or Bob Ben­nett, “then we are say­ing we can’t hold him ac­count­able.” De­fer­ring to the pres­id­ent for most nom­in­a­tions puts the op­pos­i­tion in a po­s­i­tion to be­ne­fit from mis­steps.

There are ob­vi­ous un­knowns about what a post-nuc­le­ar Sen­ate would really look like. It’s com­pletely pos­sible that there could be new ter­rible pro­ced­ures to re­place the old ones. But with the Sen­ate so mired in grid­lock, there’s no reas­on not to try and blow things up.

Michael Catalin contributed to this article.
What We're Following See More »
WITH LIVE BLOGGING
Trump Deposition Video Is Online
18 hours ago
STAFF PICKS

The video of Donald Trump's deposition in his case against restaurateur Jeffrey Zakarian is now live. Slate's Jim Newell and Josh Voorhees are live-blogging it while they watch.

Source:
SOUND LEVEL AFFECTED
Debate Commission Admits Issues with Trump’s Mic
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

The Commission on Presidential Debates put out a statement today that gives credence to Donald Trump's claims that he had a bad microphone on Monday night. "Regarding the first debate, there were issues regarding Donald Trump's audio that affected the sound level in the debate hall," read the statement in its entirety.

Source:
TRUMP VS. CHEFS
Trump Deposition Video to Be Released
19 hours ago
THE LATEST

"A video of Donald Trump testifying under oath about his provocative rhetoric about Mexicans and other Latinos is set to go public" as soon as today. "Trump gave the testimony in June at a law office in Washington in connection with one of two lawsuits he filed last year after prominent chefs reacted to the controversy over his remarks by pulling out of plans to open restaurants at his new D.C. hotel. D.C. Superior Court Judge Brian Holeman said in an order issued Thursday evening that fears the testimony might show up in campaign commercials were no basis to keep the public from seeing the video."

Source:
A CANDIDATE TO BE ‘PROUD’ OF
Chicago Tribune Endorses Gary Johnson
23 hours ago
THE LATEST

No matter that his recall of foreign leaders leaves something to be desired, Gary Johnson is the choice of the Chicago Tribune's editorial board. The editors argue that Donald Trump couldn't do the job of president, while hitting Hillary Clinton for "her intent to greatly increase federal spending and taxation, and serious questions about honesty and trust." Which leaves them with Johnson. "Every American who casts a vote for him is standing for principles," they write, "and can be proud of that vote. Yes, proud of a candidate in 2016."

NEVER TRUMP
USA Today Weighs in on Presidential Race for First Time Ever
1 days ago
THE DETAILS

"By all means vote, just not for Donald Trump." That's the message from USA Today editors, who are making the first recommendation on a presidential race in the paper's 34-year history. It's not exactly an endorsement; they make clear that the editorial board "does not have a consensus for a Clinton endorsement." But they state flatly that Donald Trump is, by "unanimous consensus of the editorial board, unfit for the presidency."

Source:
×