I think it is time to explain what Chris Dodd (D-CT) is doing. I hear a lot of people applauding him and a lot of people demonizing Harry Reid (R-NV), but not a lot of understanding about the details.
The Senate likes to operate with unanimous consent. Let’s say that Harry Reid wants to begin debate on a bill. He’ll discuss the scheduling with Mitch McConnell, the Minority Leader, and they will negotiate out the amount of time alloted for debate and the number of amendments that it will be permissible to introduce. Technically, you cannot make a Senator shut up, so time constraints must be agreed upon by unanimous consent. If a Senator refuses to abide by the time constraints, it is called a filibuster.
The nature of the filibuster has changed over time. We no longer have actual filibusters where a Senator takes to the floor with an Encyclopedia and reads for 18 hours straight. That is too time consuming. Today, it is enough to announce your intention to filibuster to force the Majority Leader to move on to some other piece of business. An attempt to overcome a filibuster is called a vote for cloture. If sixty Senators agree to invoke cloture, they are agreeing to cut off debate and move to a vote. Sometimes the Majority Leader will introduce a vote for cloture even though he knows that he doesn’t have 60 votes. The purpose is to get everyone on the record as opposing a vote on the bill.
A Senator doesn’t have to filibuster, however, to put obstacles in the way of a vote on a bill. He can place a ‘hold’ on the bill. And he can do it anonymously. In this case, Senator Dodd has chosen to place a ‘hold’ publicly. He has announced that he will object to an unanimous consent request to move forward with a vote on the FISA bill if it has retroactive immunity for the telecommunications corporations. In order to overcome this, Harry Reid must get a majority of Senators to vote on a ‘motion to proceed’. It’s slightly different, but it serves the same purpose as a vote to invoke cloture, because the motion to proceed can itself be filibustered.
So, let’s walk through this. Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell will come together and negotiate out the details of the FISA bill debate. Debate will be limited to a certain number of hours and each side will be limited to three or four amendments. Then they will ask for unanimous consent to begin the consideration of the bill. Sen. Dodd will object, denying them unanimous consent. At this point, someone will introduce a ‘motion to proceed’ without unanimous consent. They’ll need 51 votes, but Dodd can filibuster the motion. So, really, they’ll need 60 votes to invoke cloture and proceed to a vote on the motion to proceed.
If Dodd loses this vote then he will also lose a cloture vote to end debate on the bill itself. In other words, even though Dodd has announced that he will filibuster the FISA bill if his hold is not respected, it makes no difference. All that matters is whether 60 Senators want to vote on FISA or not.
However, it is a little more complicated than that. When a senator places a ‘hold’ on a piece of legislation it is usually respected. It is almost always respected by the Senator’s own party. If you vote to proceed over a colleague’s ‘hold’, you can expect severe retaliation. As the chairman of the Banking Committee, there are myriad ways that Senator Dodd can make life miserable for anyone that crosses him.
Harry Reid will need eleven Democrats that are willing to piss off Sen. Dodd. Some likely candidates, like Sen. Carper (D-DE) and Tim Johnson (D-SD), are members of the Banking Committee and will be loathe to take sides. Others, like Teddy Kennedy (D-MA) would never cross their good friend.
There is one other way of looking at this, however. Why should one senator be able to hold up the business of the Senate? The use of the ‘hold’, especially when done anonymously, is an extremely obnoxious practice. If the caucus as a whole wants to proceed, they are within their rights to override Dodd’s ‘hold’. After all, the bill was voted out of the Intelligence Committee by a vote of 13-2…even Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) voted for it (Feingold and Wyden, did not).
Dodd is trying to get his caucus to do the right thing here. But the caucus probably does not want to do the right thing. They will try to convince Dodd to back down. If he won’t, they will be forced to appease him in some way or risk a very ugly confrontation.
Russ:
Thanks for the concise and easy to understand rundown on this. I have been trying to jump around the net today to get a sense of what is happening and why and you have laid it very well. There is a lot of noisy discussion everywhere you look on this.
In our fantasy world the Dem caucus would get together and say “Damn, Chris has a good point, maybe we should consider revisiting this”. But the reality is that, while not passing this bill as it stands is indeed the “right thing to do”, we know it will, in fact, eventually be passed pretty much as-is. And it will likely include all the things this administration wants and probably some extras thrown in that they hadn’t really thought of yet. I mean, that’s the image of bipartisanship the Dem leadership so badly wants on display, right?
At this point I wonder if the caucus wouldn’t secretly like to throw Dodd under the bus if they could. He is really messing with the happy face they seem to want to make with their Republican cohorts.
Glenn Greenwald contacted Senator Reid’s office and asked for Reid’s view on Dodd’s hold. The response he received pretty much says it all.
From the tone of the e-mail response from Reid’s office, it would be hard to question Glenn’s assumptions.
As a side note, AT&T is the 17th largest contributor to Harry Reid during the 2001-2006 period.
As the chairman of the Banking Committee, there are myriad ways that Senator Dodd can make life miserable for anyone that crosses him.
Time to call Bob Casey: he’s on the banking committee.
My conversations with his office this week have been largely positive: staffers told me casey no longer supports immunity/amnesty for telecoms. I reminded them that Dodd is chair of banking and can make casey’s life hell if casey doesn’t support him
will call again monday.
Thanks so much, BooMan, for this valuable, informative run-down of a not-that-well-understood process.
I appreciate that! Hard to follow the machinations of these people!
This is a perfect example of how the Democratic party does more damage than good to the liberal cause. I don’t care about the machinations of the Senate. I don’t care about what the rules are. I just want someone, anyone, to stand up and fight for the principle of the 4th Amendment and the rule of law. Can we have one politician that thinks that allowing the government to spy on Americans without warrant is a big deal? Filibuster this act, put a hold on it, go on a hunger strike, anything. I don’t care. Come up with some political stunt. But someone. Please. Someone stand up and fight for this. Jeez. It wouldn’t take much. Just look how some of us are applauding the rather tame “fight” Dodd is putting up. The Democrats are ruining their image for decades on this. I can’t express the anger I now have for the Democratic party.
I agree. I’m really tired of the Dems playing by the so-called rules and trying to adhere to the supposed decorum of the Senate. Their GrOPing counterparts have no respect for them and no intention of playing fair and I’m sick of Reid pretending that they do.
And for the love of monkeys, you do not bow down to the whims and wishes of a guy that is as beloved as the clap. BTW, Harry, the corporate world may be supporting your crinkled old ass, but the voters can still kick it to the curb (eventually). Being W’s bitch is no way to keep the love of the electorate, be they Dem, Indy or GrOPer.
The problem is that even the most politically engaged people still lack an understanding of how the rules work. They ask for things to be done, but they don’t know how that would be translated into action.
This allows for unrealistic expectations on our part and a convenient excuse on their part.
Dodd is doing the most that any one senator can do. But he cannot do anything if Dems are willing to cross him and override his hold. Reid can’t do much either. The problem is with the caucus, not Reid. If there are 11 Dems that want to give immunity to the telcos more than they want to avoid angering Dodd then Reid can’t stop them.
He could refuse to introduce the bill and let it sunset. But he’d need a majority of his caucus to support him in that. He might even need more than a majority of his caucus…or he’d risk losing a leadership election.
We need to know what we’re up against, and understanding the rules is crucial.
That’s not all the Dems could do. Dean could vow that the party will support primary opponents for every Dem who votes to override Dodd, and if they survive, give them zero support in the general election. Sometimes things get more important than politics.
Realistically, however, I hope MoveOn, PFAW and similar groups put out preemptive warnings about what Dem crossover senators will face when they’re up for reelection.
Understanding the rules is indeed important to try to achieve legislative victory. BooMan is right to remind us of the Senate rules and the importance of playing a smart legislative game. But the Democrats have shown they have no interest in playing for a legislative victory. Their victory is to give Bush and the telcos their bill and marginalize those of us who protest.
But forget a legislative victory–that ship has sailed. We need to fight for a political victory. This issue is a really big deal to me and many others because IT IS A BIG DEAL. I really try to avoid hyperbole but how can one not see the importance of the constitutional crisis facing this country? It really astounds me that there is almost no politician that is willing to be appropriately exercised about this. And apparantly it’s a big snoozer to the media as well (except for some–anyone see Frontline this week on “Cheney’s law”?). I’m really dumbfounded.
So the only way to achieve any semblance of victory is to get the public’s attention. Someone like Dodd (Feingold would be better) could make his career and legacy out of strong action here. Even if the Senate doesn’t allow a “real” filibuster make a big deal out of insisting on a real filibuster. Dodd should tell his fellow Senators that they need a lesson on the Constitution and he will insist on giving them that lesson. Make his fellow Senators arrest him to stop him from filibustering. Bring in some WWII veterans to guard him in his fight for freedom. It really isn’t hard to come up with some stunt that will grab the public’s attention. Call any Republican strategist.
Face it folks. We will lose this legislatively. The Democrats will give our freedom away–again. Our only hope is for Dodd or someone (Bueller? . . Bueller?) to show the American people what’s happening and to prepare for the inevitable next fight–the next time the Democrats and Bush take our liberties away.
Thanks for the explanation Booman. However, I have come to the conclusion that the “rules” always favor the guy with the most $$$$ to throw around. Somehow, I missed that part of the “how a bill becomes a law” lecture in high school civics. I think the founding fathers did too.
Random Chance only applies if the D’s are neutral on the outcomes.
I’m thinking not.
At last! Someone more cynical than I am. Sadly, I have a feeling you are on to something here.
when i posted on dodd’s threat to filibuster, i predicted a potential shitstorm, and that, in order to stick with his principled stand, dodd was going to need balls of steel the size of basketballs…
otoh, i have been waiting for a confrontation to blow the constitutional crisis out into the open… i had hoped the dems would summon the cojones to proceed with inherent contempt charges in light of the white house flipping off congressional subpoenas, but, for the congressional dem leadership, who have evidently submitted to voluntary neutering and spaying, that is not to be… too bad it has to come in the firm of in intra-party battle, but so be it… one way or another, we are way, WAY overdue in facing up to the most serious crisis that has ever faced our democratic republic…
Ah Objects To That Characterization.
Ah am NOT Cynical.
Ah am merely observant and realistic about what Ah Sees.
(Besides, I gave up cynicism some years ago when it became obviously unsupportable as a viewpoint; reality went bad far past the ability of mere cynicism to follow.)