McConnell and Schumer Agreement on Committees/Rules

[SteveRogers]

At the start of a session, an organizing resolution needs to be passed that sets the rules. That needs 60 votes. Meaning it needs McConnell's support. So before everyone flips their collective sh**t, know that this result was guaranteed in a 50/50 senate.

AHEM. The answer is right here.

Bulls**t. The Republicans didn't have these rules when they had Cheney breaking ties to have the majority in early 2001.

What rules are you referring to? They did in fact have equally split committees while the Senate was 50-50 in 2001.

[brucejoel99]

At the start of a session, an organizing resolution needs to be passed that sets the rules. That needs 60 votes. Meaning it needs McConnell's support. So before everyone flips their collective sh**t, know that this result was guaranteed in a 50/50 senate.

AHEM. The answer is right here.

Bullsh**t. The Republicans didn't have these rules when they had Cheney breaking ties to have the majority in early 2001.

Ahem:

The negotiations between Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have been built largely around how the Senate operated the last time the body was split 50-50: When George W. Bush initially became president in 2001. Final details are still being sorted out between the two leaders, sources said, and the two are expected to meet on Tuesday to discuss these issues.

Similar to those rules, set in January 2001, Schumer and McConnell aides are discussing allowing bills and nominations to advance to the Senate floor even if they are tied during committee votes, something that could become common given that each party is expected to have the same number of seats on committees.

Also, here's a rundown on those 2001 rules:

The 2000 elections resulted in a Senate composed of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. An historic agreement, worked out by the party floor leaders, in consultation with their party colleagues, was presented to the Senate ( S.Res. 8 ) on January 5, 2001, and agreed to the same day. The agreement was expanded by a leadership colloquy on January 8, 2001. It remained in effect until June of 2001, when Senators reached a new agreement to account for the fact that a Senator had left the Republican party to become an Independent who would caucus with the Democratic party.

This report describes the principal features of this and related agreements which provided for Republican chairs of all Senate committees after January 20, 2001; equal party representation on all Senate committees; equal division of committee staffs between the parties; procedures for discharging measures blocked by tie votes in committee; a restriction on the offering of cloture motions on amendable matters; restrictions on floor amendments offered by party leaders; eligibility of Senators from both parties to preside over the Senate; and general provisions seeking to reiterate the equal interest of both parties in the scheduling of Senate chamber business. Also noted is that not all aspects of Senate practice were affected by the powersharing agreement.

[jimrtex]

The Senate should get rid of the party leaders. Senators should be able to make motions in order of seniority. If they do not get through the list on a single day, start with the next senator on the following day.

Meet in session at least four hours per day, six days per week.

[T'Chenka]

Please tell me this is sarcasm, did you not read the rest of the thread.

sees maroon avatar Oh of course not

This post is sad. Did a maroon avatar ruin your childhood or something?

[WMS]

At the start of a session, an organizing resolution needs to be passed that sets the rules. That needs 60 votes. Meaning it needs McConnell's support. So before everyone flips their collective sh**t, know that this result was guaranteed in a 50/50 senate.

AHEM. The answer is right here.

Bullsh**t. The Republicans didn't have these rules when they had Cheney breaking ties to have the majority in early 2001.

Ahem:

The negotiations between Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell have been built largely around how the Senate operated the last time the body was split 50-50: When George W. Bush initially became president in 2001. Final details are still being sorted out between the two leaders, sources said, and the two are expected to meet on Tuesday to discuss these issues.

Similar to those rules, set in January 2001, Schumer and McConnell aides are discussing allowing bills and nominations to advance to the Senate floor even if they are tied during committee votes, something that could become common given that each party is expected to have the same number of seats on committees.

Also, here's a rundown on those 2001 rules:

The 2000 elections resulted in a Senate composed of 50 Republicans and 50 Democrats. An historic agreement, worked out by the party floor leaders, in consultation with their party colleagues, was presented to the Senate ( S.Res. 8 ) on January 5, 2001, and agreed to the same day. The agreement was expanded by a leadership colloquy on January 8, 2001. It remained in effect until June of 2001, when Senators reached a new agreement to account for the fact that a Senator had left the Republican party to become an Independent who would caucus with the Democratic party.

This report describes the principal features of this and related agreements which provided for Republican chairs of all Senate committees after January 20, 2001; equal party representation on all Senate committees; equal division of committee staffs between the parties; procedures for discharging measures blocked by tie votes in committee; a restriction on the offering of cloture motions on amendable matters; restrictions on floor amendments offered by party leaders; eligibility of Senators from both parties to preside over the Senate; and general provisions seeking to reiterate the equal interest of both parties in the scheduling of Senate chamber business. Also noted is that not all aspects of Senate practice were affected by the powersharing agreement.

Thank you, and SteveRogers, and the God Empress Stacey I, for making me laugh the most I have in a while.

[Pollster]

This system gives individual Democratic Senators (particularly on committees like appropriations and judiciary) absolutely massive amounts of power.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Schumer is gonna make Senators work on weekends, the mistake of Mcconnell is that he let Senators go home on weekends

[emailking]

How are the committees voting on Biden's cabinet nominees without this? Or does it only matter for legislation?

[KaiserDave]

This system gives individual Democratic Senators (particularly on committees like appropriations and judiciary) absolutely massive amounts of power.

Pat Leahy and Sheldon Whitehouse will run the nation.




I approve.

[brucejoel99]

How are the committees voting on Biden's cabinet nominees without this? Or does it only matter for legislation?

The nominees who've been voted out of committee thus far have been voted on by large enough bipartisan majorities that the pre-existing partisan margins on said committees were irrelevant to the final vote. That's very unlikely to remain the case for any legislation, which is why an organizing resolution is still a de-facto requirement before actual legislation can proceed.

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

The D's are running everything thru the floor and all the nominations are being approved by Romney, Murkowski and Collins along with most Rs just like Obama picks.

The controversial Defense Secreta has been confirmed

The issue is Statehood and whether D's are gonna add new states now or in the future and Judges that need Committee votes, the Reconciliation package and Impeachment doesn't need Committee votes

[Amenhotep Bakari-Sellers]

Another reason why Schumer isn't folding to McConnells demands is he is worried about an AOC primary challenge in 2022, if he loses, DURBIN automatically becomes Majority Leader, I wouldn't mind that in a 53-47 Senate

D's win NC, GA, WI and PA.

Schumer is in an awkward position, keeping Senate in limbo or risk losing his leadership to DURBIN

[Virginiá]

There's always an alternative to this power-sharing deal. Nuke the filibuster and ram through DC statehood. Problem solved.

[politics_king]

Another reason why Schumer isn't folding to McConnells demands is he is worried about an AOC primary challenge in 2022, if he loses, DURBIN automatically becomes Majority Leader, I wouldn't mind that in a 53-47 Senate

D's win NC, GA, WI and PA.

Schumer is in an awkward position, keeping Senate in limbo or risk losing his leadership to DURBIN

AOC won't run against him. Now he may not go for re-election in 2028, I could then see AOC run for his open seat.

[jdk]

The D's are running everything thru the floor and all the nominations are being approved by Romney, Murkowski and Collins along with most Rs just like Obama picks.

The controversial Defense Secreta has been confirmed

The issue is Statehood and whether D's are gonna add new states now or in the future and Judges that need Committee votes, the Reconciliation package and Impeachment doesn't need Committee votes

He was near unanimous.  Only two Republicans (Hawley and Lee) voted no.   I wouldn't call that "controversial"

[ProgressiveModerate]

Schumer should just threaten to pass DC statehood if they don't reach and agreement by Feb 1.

[emailking]

What I read is that Republicans are still chairing the committees.

Apparently the holdup is that McConnell wants the resolution to preserve the filibuster (it hasn't been part of the Organizing Resolution in the past).

[YE]

What I read is that Republicans are still chairing the committees.

Apparently the holdup is that McConnell wants the resolution to preserve the filibuster (it hasn't been part of the Organizing Resolution in the past).

This is how the fillibuster gets eliminated because guess who becomes chair of a committee if Dems go nuclear? Joe Manchin.

[7,052,770]

Schumer should just threaten to pass DC statehood if they don't reach and agreement by Feb 1.

DC statehood is not a bargaining chip. Modern Jim Crow must be ended ASAP, regardless of how this fight with McConnell goes.

[Hammy]

There's always an alternative to this power-sharing deal. Nuke the filibuster and ram through DC statehood. Problem solved.

Schumer's too much of a coward to do that.

[Pericles]

There's always an alternative to this power-sharing deal. Nuke the filibuster and ram through DC statehood. Problem solved.

Schumer's too much of a coward to do that.

You're just saying that, you don't have evidence to back it up. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, stop constantly being doomers and attacking the Democrats.

[YE]

There's always an alternative to this power-sharing deal. Nuke the filibuster and ram through DC statehood. Problem solved.

Schumer's too much of a coward to do that.

Prior to yesterday I’d agree but Schumer is now kinda forced to at least kill the fillibuster as a result of GOP refusing to ceed control of committees. Not sure why McConnell is opting to die on this hill tbh. I guess there’s the chance Schumer folds on the committees/resolution but I don’t think he’s that stupid tbh.

[Hammy]

There's always an alternative to this power-sharing deal. Nuke the filibuster and ram through DC statehood. Problem solved.

Schumer's too much of a coward to do that.

You're just saying that, you don't have evidence to back it up. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, stop constantly being doomers and attacking the Democrats.

Schumer has always been a coward, his entire tenure as the Dems' Senate leader backs this up--and the fact he's not taking the above option further proves it. He could also make a deal with Manchin and give West Virginia some sort of benefits in return.

But if making a valid point about somebody who should've been replaced a decade ago is "doomerism" then the Dems are nothing more than the same reality-denying self deluded cult the Republicans are, where pointing out reality is wrong and goes against the groupthink that everything's fine now that we have the white house.

Not sure why McConnell is opting to die on this hill tbh.

Power, whatever the cost, is all McConnell and really most of the GOP care about. Take what you can in the short term and long term consequences be damned.

[Chancellor Tanterterg]

There's always an alternative to this power-sharing deal. Nuke the filibuster and ram through DC statehood. Problem solved.

Schumer's too much of a coward to do that.

Imagine actually believing this  

[GALeftist]

Frankly I don't see the point of 2001 comparisons. 2001 was a different world. Democrats could probably get some Republicans on board with legislation, and vice versa, but that is no longer the case. Furthermore, we all know McConnell would not be power sharing if Trump was president, whereas the reverse was probably not true of Daschle and Lott. Democrats have the majority and at least two more senators waiting in the wings, that's all that there should be to it.