Specter to Bush:
Bring Congress Back
Senator Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) today sent a letter to President Bush suggesting that he call Congress back into session to act on energy legislation. In the letter, Senator Specter writes that Congress should be using the August recess to legislate on energy “in an effort to deal with the high cost of oil and gasoline at the pump.”
Specter writes: “On July 28, 2008 in a floor debate, I challenged Majority Leader Reid directly to keep the Senate in session during August for that purpose. He declined, responding that Republicans would ‘suffer’ more than Democrats because more Republican Senate seats were in jeopardy. I countered with the observation that it wasn’t a matter of whether Republicans or Democrats would ‘suffer’ the most, but that the issue was the suffering of the American people from the high cost of oil and gasoline.”
Specter goes on to write: “For months the Senate has been dysfunctional and gridlocked for reasons specified in my op-ed article (copy enclosed) which is published in the Philadelphia Inquirer today. I further suggest that you call upon Senator Reid to suspend his practice of ‘filling the tree,’ at least during the August session so that the Senate can perform its traditional function and legislate.”
The full text of Senator Specter’s op-ed that appeared in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer is below. PDF of the letter to the President
A 'do-nothing' U.S. Senate?
Then, fight its use of arcane, unfair tactic
By Senator Arlen Specter
Last Friday, the "do-nothing" Senate adjourned for the August recess without taking any action on the prices of oil or gas at the pump and other key issues, because the "world's greatest deliberative body" is gridlocked.
The American people need to know why, so that public pressure can be applied to make the Senate do its job. A practice has evolved where the majority leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, have used a procedural device called "filling the tree" to bar any other senator from offering any amendment.
Until 1993, this tactic was seldom used, so that any senator had a right to offer virtually any amendment to any bill at any time. That, plus unlimited debate, made the Senate a unique legislative forum to air important public policy issues and to acquaint the public with the need for new laws.
The importance of allowing senators the right to offer amendments can't be overstated. It is through the amendment process that bad legislation is made palatable and palatable legislation is made better. That changed when majority leaders from both parties found they could gain partisan political advantage by using their power to offer a sufficient number of amendments to fill the tree. This arcane, inside-the-Beltway tactic needs to be understood so that the American people can insist on its being stopped.
When the Oil Speculators Bill was brought up July 23, Democratic Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada filled the tree. Reid then moved for cloture, which means to cut off further debate so that the legislation would move to final passage.
I joined in helping to defeat cloture, which required 60 votes. Even though I favored the basic principles of the legislation, I opposed it because I was precluded from offering an amendment to subject OPEC nations to our antitrust laws, which would stop them from raising the international price of oil by acting jointly to lower production.
Then the finger-pointing began. Reid blamed Republicans for killing the bill by filibustering to defeat cloture. Republicans countered that it was the fault of Reid and the Democrats because Republicans were not all allowed to offer amendments. The public was understandably bewildered.
Nothing got done.
With the Oil Speculators Bill pending, no other legislation could be considered under Senate rules without displacing that bill. Republicans refused to set aside the bill, arguing that oil and gasoline prices were the most urgent problems facing the nation.
There was a significant element of politics in the Republican position, but it was also solid on the merits. This impasse resulted in the Senate's not considering other important legislation, such as Defense Department funding, tax credits for alternative energy, increasing grants for low-income heating energy assistance, and the reporters' shield bill.
When the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans controlled the Senate, Democrats were adamant in denouncing then-Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) for filling the tree.
On Feb. 28, 2006, Reid said: "Filling the amendment tree . . . is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate." Similarly, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said May 11, 2006, that filling the tree "to basically lock out any amendments . . . runs contrary to the very essence of this body."
I have long opposed this tactic. In February 2007, I introduced Senate Resolution 83 calling for a revision of the Senate rules to prohibit filling the tree. Notwithstanding my frequent requests, the rules committee has failed to act on this proposal.
Once the American people understand what is happening to subvert the legislative process, sufficient public pressure could be mounted to change this tactic and restore equilibrium and fair play to the Senate.
Specter writes: “On July 28, 2008 in a floor debate, I challenged Majority Leader Reid directly to keep the Senate in session during August for that purpose. He declined, responding that Republicans would ‘suffer’ more than Democrats because more Republican Senate seats were in jeopardy. I countered with the observation that it wasn’t a matter of whether Republicans or Democrats would ‘suffer’ the most, but that the issue was the suffering of the American people from the high cost of oil and gasoline.”
Specter goes on to write: “For months the Senate has been dysfunctional and gridlocked for reasons specified in my op-ed article (copy enclosed) which is published in the Philadelphia Inquirer today. I further suggest that you call upon Senator Reid to suspend his practice of ‘filling the tree,’ at least during the August session so that the Senate can perform its traditional function and legislate.”
The full text of Senator Specter’s op-ed that appeared in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer is below. PDF of the letter to the President
A 'do-nothing' U.S. Senate?
Then, fight its use of arcane, unfair tactic
By Senator Arlen Specter
Last Friday, the "do-nothing" Senate adjourned for the August recess without taking any action on the prices of oil or gas at the pump and other key issues, because the "world's greatest deliberative body" is gridlocked.
The American people need to know why, so that public pressure can be applied to make the Senate do its job. A practice has evolved where the majority leaders, both Republicans and Democrats, have used a procedural device called "filling the tree" to bar any other senator from offering any amendment.
Until 1993, this tactic was seldom used, so that any senator had a right to offer virtually any amendment to any bill at any time. That, plus unlimited debate, made the Senate a unique legislative forum to air important public policy issues and to acquaint the public with the need for new laws.
The importance of allowing senators the right to offer amendments can't be overstated. It is through the amendment process that bad legislation is made palatable and palatable legislation is made better. That changed when majority leaders from both parties found they could gain partisan political advantage by using their power to offer a sufficient number of amendments to fill the tree. This arcane, inside-the-Beltway tactic needs to be understood so that the American people can insist on its being stopped.
When the Oil Speculators Bill was brought up July 23, Democratic Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada filled the tree. Reid then moved for cloture, which means to cut off further debate so that the legislation would move to final passage.
I joined in helping to defeat cloture, which required 60 votes. Even though I favored the basic principles of the legislation, I opposed it because I was precluded from offering an amendment to subject OPEC nations to our antitrust laws, which would stop them from raising the international price of oil by acting jointly to lower production.
Then the finger-pointing began. Reid blamed Republicans for killing the bill by filibustering to defeat cloture. Republicans countered that it was the fault of Reid and the Democrats because Republicans were not all allowed to offer amendments. The public was understandably bewildered.
Nothing got done.
With the Oil Speculators Bill pending, no other legislation could be considered under Senate rules without displacing that bill. Republicans refused to set aside the bill, arguing that oil and gasoline prices were the most urgent problems facing the nation.
There was a significant element of politics in the Republican position, but it was also solid on the merits. This impasse resulted in the Senate's not considering other important legislation, such as Defense Department funding, tax credits for alternative energy, increasing grants for low-income heating energy assistance, and the reporters' shield bill.
When the shoe was on the other foot and Republicans controlled the Senate, Democrats were adamant in denouncing then-Majority Leader Sen. Bill Frist (R., Tenn.) for filling the tree.
On Feb. 28, 2006, Reid said: "Filling the amendment tree . . . is a very bad practice. It runs against the basic nature of the Senate. The hallmark of the Senate is free speech and open debate." Similarly, Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut said May 11, 2006, that filling the tree "to basically lock out any amendments . . . runs contrary to the very essence of this body."
I have long opposed this tactic. In February 2007, I introduced Senate Resolution 83 calling for a revision of the Senate rules to prohibit filling the tree. Notwithstanding my frequent requests, the rules committee has failed to act on this proposal.
Once the American people understand what is happening to subvert the legislative process, sufficient public pressure could be mounted to change this tactic and restore equilibrium and fair play to the Senate.
.jpg)
Comments