Roll Call: Latest News on Capitol Hill, Congress, Politics and Elections
July 1, 2015

Merkley Says No More ‘Gentlemen’s Agreement’ to Avert ‘Nuclear Option’

One of the Senate’s most outspoken proponents of changing the chamber’s rules said Wednesday that another handshake compromise is not an option.

“A third ‘gentlemen’s agreement’ is not an acceptable outcome,” Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., said during a joint appearance with AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka Wednesday morning.

Merkley was referring to the results of the two prior efforts to change the Senate’s rules to curtail the ability of a minority of senators to filibuster using what’s often known as the “nuclear option.” In those cases, senators reached bipartisan deals on more narrow changes that have had dubious results.

He said that the level of concern about future repercussions when the roles reverse and a Republican president sends nominees to a GOP-led Senate have been fading.

“It is lessening because the frustration is growing. In other words, a modest amount of obstruction, an occasional request for a supermajority … once or twice a year might be one thing, but when it’s continuous on person after person after person, it’s just a very clear strategy to disable an administration re-elected by the American people,” Merkley said.

That may also be in part because of the reduced number of Democratic senators with experience serving with a GOP majority leader.

“If anyone thinks a future President Perry or a future President Palin and a future Majority Leader McConnell are not going to work together and if necessary change the rules as they proposed in 2005 to get nominations considered, I think you’re probably in an … imaginary world,” Merkley said.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., told reporters Tuesday that he intends to outline a way forward on nominations at a Democratic caucus meeting Thursday. Merkley, who met with Reid about the subject Tuesday, suggested Democrats are prepared to push ahead with a move to eliminate super-majority requirements for confirming presidential nominees to executive departments and agencies.

He said the current focus is on the executive branch, not judges and legislative business.

“I think what you’re going to have is a unified caucus coming out of there saying you’ve proven to us you won’t keep your word,” Trumka said, in reference to Senate Republicans. “This is about obstructionism, and if you continue to obstruct, we will use the rules to force you not to be able to obstruct.”

The labor movement has gotten involved because the National Labor Relations Board is mere weeks away from being unable to secure a quorum to conduct business. President Barack Obama’s nominees to the board have yet to face floor votes. Republicans say that at least two of the picks will not get GOP votes to overcome procedural hurdles, citing disputed recess appointments.

“Give these people an up-or-down vote, or we’ll make sure that they get an up-or-down vote,” Trumka said.

“We’re trying to educate as many people as we can. We’re educating our members, we’re educating our partners, we’re educating … the general public,” Trumka said. “We’re running a full-fledged campaign on this.”

Trumka said he was meeting with senators to encourage support for using any means needed to ensure a fully-functioning NLRB.

On the other side, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., made another in what’s become a regular series of Senate floor speeches arguing against changing the rules with a simple majority, saying presidential nominations have been moving along. He predicted that Reid will set up a sequence of votes on contentious no

“It’s why we see them bringing out all the nominees who’ve been appointed to office illegally, or who are exceedingly controversial,” McConnell said. “Democrats themselves have delayed consideration of these nominees for months — that’s Democrats who did that — so they could pull all of them out of the woodwork, all at the same time, in the hopes the Senate would reject them.”

Comments (5)

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published.

author email

  1. DemDisaster

    July 10, 2013
    3:41 p.m.

    Democrats will rue the day they pull the trigger on the nuclear option, and Harry Reid knows it. While idiots like Merkley label it obstructionism by the Republicans, it’s a check and balance designed by the framers of the Constitution so that no one party can ram legislation through Congress. Maybe if the democrats negotiated in good faith and common sense (i.e. secure the borders before amnesty, etc.) they would find more success. The day that happens I will fly into Washington on my unicorn and personally thank democrats.

    • Bonzi77

      July 10, 2013
      4:34 p.m.

      There’s nothing in the constitution specifying votes in the Senate, filibusters or anything along those lines. The rules were created and are maintained by the Senate itself, which is why it doesn’t require a constitutional amendment to change them.

    • seraphimblade

      July 11, 2013
      6:22 p.m.

      “Advise and consent” to nominees, in the Constitution, only requires a simple Senate majority. The filibuster is a Senate procedural rule, and is nowhere specified in the Constitution. The Senate is allowed to set and change its own rules, and if one side is abusing something meant to be an exceptional case to obstruct routine nominations that have a majority, they should do so.

      Actually, what I’d like to see is a return to the “talking filibuster”. If you want to obstruct, get up there and actually talk for hours. Getting a little hungry, need a bathroom break? You’re done then. Not important enough to take that kind of drastic step? Not important enough to filibuster, then.

      And the ones not acting in “good faith” are the ones who can’t seem to realize they lost, not won, the last election. That means most things that go through won’t be as they’d like them.

  2. giatny

    July 10, 2013
    5:11 p.m.

    In letters to Senators in opposition to S744, I warned as soon as the reform bill passes the Senate, Reid would act to kill
    the filibuster to get Obama’s most unpopular nominees
    confirmed. It’s no comfort being right. The CFPB, the NLRB
    nominees and Thomas Perez are all clear and present dangers to the non-partisan rule of law. The CFPB was given unilateral power to control the entire consumer credit industry which is the core of the financial system. Eliz Warren created it as a means to get maximum credit into the hands of the least credit worthy. The board is already amassing the credit card and banking records of EVERYONE. Wake Up America!!!! The nominees to the NLRB might as well be union bosses as they have no modicum of objectivity. Thomas Perez is corrupt to the core and an unconstitutional advocate for blacks and latinos. His theory of “disparate impact” has been used as a tool of extortion. The GOP must fight this travesty. The purpose of “advise and consent” from the Senate is precisely to prevent confirmation of unprincipled, political nominees. The Constitution of the USA has never
    been more threatened.

  3. Anonymous

    June 27, 2015
    2:57 a.m.

    Some really good content on this internet site, thanks for contribution.

Sign In

Forgot password?



Receive daily coverage of the people, politics and personality of Capitol Hill.

Subscription | Free Trial

Logging you in. One moment, please...