If you've seen Brian Beutler's TPMDC story entitled,"Inside The GOP's Plan To Stifle Obama's Executive Branch Power," you're probably wondering what this is all about:
In the nearly two months since the November midterms, the conventional wisdom has centered on the idea that President Obama's agenda will be largely protected from an influx of Republicans by the Senate's arcane rules and his own veto pen. With 47 members in the 112th Congress, the GOP will lack a majority, let alone a supermajority, to pass the legislation they'd need to pass to undo Obama's accomplishments and blunt his progress -- as if he'd sign those bills anyway.
But Republicans are all too aware of this conundrum, and have been looking for ways around it. What they found is an obscure authority provided by a 1996 law called the Congressional Review Act. It provides Congress with an expedited process by which to evaluate executive branch regulations, and then give the President a chance to agree or disagree.
House Republicans will have carte blanche next year, and will be able to pass as many of these "resolutions of disapproval" as they want. The key is that a small minority in the Senate can force votes on them as well, and they require only simple-majority support to pass. If they can find four conservative Democrats to vote with them on these resolutions, they can force Obama to serially veto politically potent measures to block unpopular regulations, and create a chilling effect on the federal agencies charged with writing them.
Congressional Review Act. Does it ring a bell? For some of you, it might. Do you remember why?
How about this?
Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) is planning to call for a vote on a resolution to upend EPA's "endangerment" finding for greenhouse gases, a determination that paves the way for agency climate rules. Murkowski last month reached an agreement with Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to call for the June 10 vote.
Murkowski is attempting to undo the endangerment finding under the Congressional Review Act, which would require 51 votes to clear the chamber. Up to seven hours of debate will precede the vote; no filibusters or amendments would be possible.
That probably jogs some memories, yes?
Or what about this one?
On the Senate side, while the defense authorization bill's motion to proceed languishes in limbo, they'll move on to other business. First, a motion to proceed to a "resolution of disapproval" of a proposed rule promulgated by the National Mediation Board. Essentially, it's a rule about elections of union representation. The unions covered by the NMB (rather than the National Labor Relations Board) want certification procedures closer to those used by the NLRB. The NMB agrees and wants to implement that, and Republicans disapprove. Surprise!
So isn't this the sort of thing that would make Senate Democrats want to back off of rules reform, and perhaps convince them to preserve the filibuster, so that such things can be blocked? Well, no:
How does something like that make it to the floor under Democratic leadership? Well, the Congressional Review Act basically puts these resolutions of disapproval -- essentially legislative vetoes of proposed executive agency administrative rules -- on a fast track that can't be blocked or filibustered. So there's really no way to stop them except to either defeat the motion to proceed and/or the resolution itself.
Oh, P.S., resolutions of disapproval are Joint Resolutions, which means they go to the President for signature. Or veto.
Anyway, isn't that an amazing concept? The budget can't be filibustered because of the Budget Act that they passed in 1974. And reconciliation bills can't be filibustered because of Budget Act amendments from the 80s. And resolutions of disapproval can't be filibustered because of the Congressional Review Act, which they passed in 1996. What happened to that whole "200 year tradition of unlimited debate because that's the way the founders intended it" thing, yadda, yadda, yadda?
Answer: the Senate does what it wants, when it wants to. Including throwing out bits and pieces of the supposedly immutable law of the filibuster.
Just to make you a little more annoyed about this, what does it take to get one of these things to the floor in the Senate? Well, not only are such resolutions not subject to a filibuster, but they can also be discharged from committee with just 30 signatures. So get yourself 29 friends, and you're entitled to a place on the Senate's calendar, and a motion to proceed to the resolution is in order at any time thereafter.
Pretty cool, eh? Well, it is if you're a Republican who wants to make trouble for the administration but who believes both that the filibuster is sacrosanct, and that the rights of the minority are virtually nonexistent and constantly under attack, I guess.