Sens. Amy Klobuchar and Al Franken are offering their own ideas to fix the filibuster, a Senate procedure that often results in gridlock in the upper chamber. Klobuchar is a cosponsor of a comprehensive filibuster reform bill introduced by Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico, Tom Harkin of Iowa and Jeff Merkley of Oregon. The trio said that since 2006, “there have been more filibusters than the total between 1920 and 1980.” Franken is offering a change to the filibuster process as well: Instead of taking 60 votes to break a filibuster, he wants 41 votes to maintain a filibuster.

His plan shifts the responsibility for the filibuster to the minority which would then have the responsibility of maintaining it.

“I respect the right of the minority that feels intensely about a great issue to continue debate,” Franken told MinnPost on Wednesday. “But the burden should be on the minority to continue that debate, not on a supermajority to end it.”

Klobuchar is part of a Democrat-led effort to reform the filibuster. A bill offered on Wednesday would not change the number of votes needed to break a filibuster, but would change the details of how a filibuster could proceed. The changes have five points:

• Eliminate the Filibuster on Motions to Proceed: Makes motions to proceed not subject to a filibuster, but provides for two hours of debate. This proposal has had bipartisan support for decades and is often mentioned as a way to end the abuse of holds.

• Eliminate Secret Holds: Prohibits one senator from objecting on behalf of another, unless he or she discloses the name of the senator with the objection. This is a simple solution to address a longstanding problem.

• Guarantee Consideration of Amendments for both Majority and Minority: Protects the rights of the minority to offer amendments following cloture filing, provided the amendments are germane and have been filed in a timely manner.

• Talking Filibuster: Ensures real debate following a failed cloture vote. Senators opposed to proceeding to final passage will be required to continue debate as long as the subject of the cloture vote or an amendment, motion, point of order, or other related matter is the pending business.

• Expedite Nominations: Provide for two hours of post-cloture debate time for nominees. Post cloture time is meant for debating and voting on amendments – something that is not possible on nominations. Instead, the minority now requires the Senate use this time simply to prevent it from moving on to other business.

Democrat Tom Udall is running for U.S. Senate in New Mexico and his campaign has produced a television ad that can only be described as time-stopping. In it, Army Sergeant Erik Schei, who was shot in the head by a sniper in Iraq, speaks his support for Udall’s efforts to fund treatment for veterans with brain trauma.

Here’s a little context from a recent USA Today report:

The government plans to substantially increase disability benefits for veterans with mild traumatic brain injuries, acknowledging for the first time that veterans suffering from this less severe version of the Iraq war’s signature wound will struggle to make a living.

“We’re saying it’s real,” said Tom Pamperin, a deputy director for the Department of Veteran Affairs, about the significance of the change to benefits in the regulation the VA plans to publish today.

Up to 320,000 troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan suffered traumatic brain injury, a RAND Corp. study estimated this year. The vast majority of the cases are mild and came from exposure to an explosion, often from a roadside bomb. Most veterans with mild cases recover, Pamperin said, but some are left with permanent problems.

]]> http://minnesotaindependent.com/13630/when-was-the-last-time-a-campaign-tv-spot-left-you-numb/feed 1 http://minnesotaindependent.com/11222/voters-venting-to-reps-following-bailout-vote http://minnesotaindependent.com/11222/voters-venting-to-reps-following-bailout-vote#comments Wed, 01 Oct 2008 17:13:19 +0000 Jonathan E. Kaplan http://minnesotaindependent.com/?p=11222 A day after watching the U.S. House of Representatives kill a $700 billion financial package as the stock market dropped more than 700 points, voters continued to vent their rage toward Washington.

But fewer of them did than in the days preceding the vote, and more of them encouraged lawmakers to support the package—or simply to do something.

On the political map there’s no pattern to what members of Congress are hearing from their constituents. While Congressional offices are calm in Iowa and Minnesota, Coloradans, Michiganders and New Mexicans still appear exercised over Monday’s vote and the prospect of a future vote.

“It’s pretty quiet here,” Rick Jauert, a spokesman for Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), said. “It is nothing like it was yesterday.”

“There’s still a good deal of calls and emails and faxes,” Jameson Cunningham, a spokesman for Rep. Thad McCotter (R), said.

While most Congressional offices estimated the number of calls and emails they received, Rep. Tom Udall (D-N.M.), a candidate for Senate who opposed the bill, crunched the numbers.

Udall received 831 emails and roughly 400 calls to its Washington and New Mexico offices. Two-thirds to 75 percent opposed to the bill. Those calls were split between those who wanted no bailout and those who support a different proposal, according to spokesman Sam Simon.

Before Monday’s vote, Udall’s offices received roughly 1,800 emails and 1,000 phone calls. Most were opposed to the package.

His opponent in the Senate race, Republican Rep. Steve Pearce, received fewer calls on Tuesday, and the tone had changed, too, from opposition to the bill to a desire for lawmakers to just “do something,” said Brian Phillips, Pearce’s spokesman. Pearce voted against the bill.

McCotter’s office experienced a huge spike in calls when the vote on the House floor started and the stock market crashed, Jameson Cunningham, McCotter’s spokesman, said. The day after the vote, he received roughly 300 calls running 3 to 1 against the bailout, a dramatic drop from Monday and last week.

Rep. Diana DeGette (D-Colo.) received hundreds of calls before the vote, but constituents now seem more supportive of a measure to stave off disaster in the credit markets, Kristofer Eisenlaw, DeGette’s spokesman, said.

Meanwhile, Rep. Leonard Boswell (D-Iowa) and Rep. Ellison, both of whom supported the bill, have not been inundated with angry calls.

Boswell’s Des Moines and Washington offices were flooded with phone calls in the days after Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson submitted his original proposal to Congress, but the calls slowed down.

“It’s fairly quiet,” Susan McAvoy, Boswell’s spokeswoman, said. “There have been some calls in the Des Moines office, but I think people are taking a pause and seeing where this is going.”

Even though voters’ anger has simmered down, the hiatus might not last very long.

The Senate is expected to be in session today, the House will return on Thursday, and the coalition of liberal and conservative lawmakers who banded together to kill the bill will be hard pressed by the White House and Congressional leadership to reverse their “no” votes.

Jonathan E. Kaplan is the Center for Independent Media’s Washington correspondent.