El trío demócrata sigue comprometido con la reforma de las reglas del Senado

WASHINGTON- Senadores estadounidenses Tom Udall (NM), Tom Harkin (IA) y Jeff Merkley (OR) today reaffirmed their commitment to making the Senate a more transparent and efficient body that is better able to respond to the needs of the American people. Last night, Senate Republicans objected to allowing the Senate to debate and vote on meaningful rules reform.

After years of unprecedented obstruction and a historic rise in the use of the filibuster, the trio introduced a resolution on Jan. 5 – the first day of the new Congress – to restore genuine debate in the chamber and make the Senate more accountable.

The reform proposal quickly gained support, earning 26 cosponsors on the day it was introduced. Support for the measure, however, stopped short of gaining the majority of votes necessary to move forward under the Constitutional Option and Senate Republicans objected to bringing the resolution to the floor for debate – a historically consistent and necessary first step to proceed.

“Reform is not for the short-winded,” said Udall. “After witnessing years of obstruction and abuse of the Senate rules, I first proposed the Constitutional Option last year to tackle the Senate’s dysfunction head-on with a simple majority vote. While I’m disappointed this body lacks the necessary will to enact truly substantive reforms, we have certainly succeeded in bringing reform to the forefront and shining a light on the sources of our dysfunction. In the long term, this fight is far from over and I’m committed making sure the Senate is more than just a graveyard for good ideas and we are able to address the challenges we face as a nation.”

“It is far too ironic that last night, Senate Republicans prevented debate on a resolution the sole purpose of which is to restore true debate. If that does not exemplify the challenges that the Senate faces, I do not know what will,” said Harkin. “Reform is not about one party or one agenda gaining an unfair advantage; it is about the Senate as an institution operating more fairly, effectively and democratically.  Unfortunately, because of the extraordinary abuse of the filibuster, the ability of our government to address critical problems is severely jeopardized. While we will continue to fight for a government that can address our nation’s challenges, Senate Republicans continued to stand for gridlock, obstruction and a continued broken government.”

“The Senate is broken. We are failing to fulfill our legislative responsibilities. In addition, we are failing our constitutional responsibility to advise and consent, leaving a number of executive and judicial nominations hanging in the wind. Right now, we are not doing the business we have been entrusted by the American people. Reform will not be easy, but it is essential. We must restore the Senate as a deliberative body. We must make the Senate transparent and accountable to the American people,” said Merkley.

Desde 2006 ha habido más filibusteros que el total entre 1920 y 1980. Como resultado de esta disfunción, en el último Congreso el Senado no pudo aprobar un solo proyecto de ley de apropiaciones o presupuesto, dejó más de 400 proyectos enviados por la Cámara sin consideración, y dejó languidecer los nombramientos ejecutivos clave y las nominaciones judiciales.

The rules reform resolution introduced by the senators proposed to do the following:

• Eliminar el obstruccionismo en las mociones para proceder: Hace mociones para proceder no sujetas a obstrucciones, pero prevé dos horas de debate. Esta propuesta ha tenido apoyo bipartidista durante décadas y, a menudo, se menciona como una forma de acabar con el abuso de las retenciones.

• Eliminar retenciones secretas: Prohíbe a un senador objetar en nombre de otro, a menos que él o ella revele el nombre del senador con la objeción. Esta es una solución simple para abordar un problema de larga data.

• Consideración garantizada de enmiendas tanto para la mayoría como para la minoría: Protege los derechos de la minoría a ofrecer enmiendas después de la presentación de la clausura, siempre que las enmiendas sean pertinentes y se hayan presentado de manera oportuna.

• Filibustero parlante: Garantiza un debate real tras una votación de clausura fallida. Los senadores que se opongan a proceder a la aprobación final deberán continuar el debate siempre que el tema de la votación de clausura o una enmienda, moción, punto de orden u otro asunto relacionado sea un asunto pendiente.

• Acelerar nominaciones: Proporcionar dos horas de tiempo de debate posterior a la clausura para los nominados. El tiempo posterior a la clausura está destinado a debatir y votar enmiendas, algo que no es posible en las nominaciones. En cambio, la minoría ahora requiere que el Senado use este tiempo simplemente para evitar que pase a otros asuntos.