committee and an example right now of how that could happen. the democratic majority is trying to overturn a certified election result i want to ask him any of our friends on the other side were arguing last month and the month before the certified estate election was a gold standard. it's over after certification. apparently not in the house. of course the constitution gives the house to determine who wille sit there, that does not mean that they should go against everything they were preaching in the last two months about the sanctity of certification and ran through someone who lost the election according to officials in iowa. that's what happens i would say to my democratic friends that's what happens. when you let partisan bodies regularly elections. that is certainly not what we need at the ftc and that's among

other things you ought to be ashamed about. >> we are joined next by molly reynolds with the brookings institution a government study senior fellow and we will look this morning at the current issue of the filibuster the historical book and current issue of the legislation awaiting in the u.s. senate. hi there. >> it's good to be there. >> let's start with historical context the filibuster itself is not in the constitution, how did it come about? >> you are right the filibuster is not provided for the constitution and we get the filibuster as it's used today starting with a little bit of a quirk of history in 1806 the senate was trying to clean up the rulebook and make sure in the modern legislature how to rulebook that was up-to-date with the times and noted they

had all the books emotion that they weren't using called the motion with the previous question so they took it out, it was a housekeeping matter. this made possible the ability later in the senate history for senators to pursue extended debate. this is being used to force extended at the time and there was not a tradition of obstruction that we see in the senate but over the course of the nextof half-century we see a combination of the senate procedural rulebook and political interest by senators unite to get us obstruction the stars to look like more of what we see today. >> some people think of the senate as an old in-state body but in relation to the

filibuster there's barely a dynamic discussion over the centuries and decades that never more so than today would legislation that's been passed by the house including the voting rights act, the equality act and we talked about gun legislation a few minutes ago that will be awaiting action in the u.s. senate. the present issue for the u.s. senate. >> i think it's important to remember the over this week of history what we've seen with the filibuster is another form of obstruction the senate is making use of these tools in the way that the senate's rules and procedures allow senators to obstruct action. use those tools until the others i get sufficiently frustrated about the way the other side is using them and preventing

action. and that's what produced change. we've seen a number of changes over the course of the history until 1917 the senate did not have a way to cut off debate so what we have now in the form of the motion with a super majority so in the early 20th century we see that come about. and then we begin to see some changes to the way of the rule works but generally that comes out of her frustration by one side around a particular issue that they're really not able to get down . . . the filibuster, where it came from. i want to focus on what it takes -- i want to focus on the chart you have there on the cloture motion. that means closing of theover t,

the number of cloture motion filed has skyrocketed. >>. >> which you describe really well is that certainly is the increased partisanship and the polarization we see in the senate. so today it is much more difficult to get the support sixties senators in favor of a particular piece of legislation and if you are in the minority party of less

incentive to work with the majority party than you did 40 or 50 years ago. together that incentivizes more and more minority party obstruction and makes a culture motion a routine part of senate business. in addition to helping down minority to block with the majority wants to do, the way the culture is used is the way the senaters manage and that is important in part because even when you are using culture motion to help set the senate schedule the way that affects the senate calendar mean that can take a long time to get things done even if you eventually have enough votes to move to final passage so even if you can get

to the super majority sometimes relying on cloture slows the senate d business down. what we have seen this spring already with president bidens cabinet nominees and cloture filed on those and then time elapsed is coming up for a vote even when those nominees ultimately are confirmed, can have debate on the nominations even with a simple majority because those are not subject to the threshold. it still means having to rely on cloture as a way to help manage a filibuster filled senate really slows down the senate. >> so judicial nominees with the supreme court is different than a normal piece of legislation that would come through the senate from the house. >> absolutely. that dates back to changes to the wayto the filibuster works.

one in 2013 executed by democrats when they controlled d the senate reduction in the number of votes needed for the lower court nominees and then in 2017 to confirm neil gore such to the supreme court. republicans executed the same change and that changes the way it was only made with 51 votes so there is a way the senate can make changes with just a simple majority. sometime we hear that the nuclear option it is called reform by ruling that the senate has a way it can do this and in the past decade we have seen this happen a couple weof times to great consequence if we look forward to changes to the filibuster through legislation the idea of using the nuclear option to pursue a

role change or the way it operates is really what we are talking about. >> we welcome your questions and comments the future of thehe filibuster in the u.s. senate, this is the "usa today" with an extensive piece of legislation awaits action why the senate. we talked about that legislation and much of it was passed in the 116th congress and lay dormant in the senate because mitch mcconnell majority leader then did not take it up so now what are the options for chuck schumer? >> leader schumer has a few options.

one is try to determine if any of those would get votes from republicans. he needs at least ten republicans because the senate is split evenly 50/50 so that's not a real possibility we have seen a lot of comments from republicans senators. the second option available to leader schumer and we saw this with the american and rescue plan suggesting democrats will push through another round of reconciliation legislation a special tool allowing for certain types of budgetary legislation to be passed without the threat of the filibuster so one option what democrats have already been working on in the house that they could fit into the reconciliation goals and

that's a vehicle for getting things done. the third option is to try and build support within his caucus in the senate or some sort of change the way those rules operate whether elimination of the filibuster , simply a change in the way the senate operates to increase the degree to which the opponents would speak on that there isum a number of different reforms floating around out there but at the end of the day the question is is there unanimous support among the democrats in the senate? if not then leader schumer has to be first into the first two options unless and until he can get support from his

senators. >> it sounds like you are saying he will do this if he does it piece by piece legislation by legislation bases not that we are ending the filibuster here's how. >> it's hard to say. the history of the filibuster i will note generally when we see changes how it works, they are closely connected to policy areas so what has allowed the senate majority inas the past to make changes the way it works is to be united enough around a particular issue that was important and worth making a change the way the senate works to get it done. 1917 is when we get the rule that provides a cloture motion the first place that comes about with a bill in the senate with the merchant ship operating out of world war i

and president wilson who goes public and uses that issue to build support for a change in the way the senate works this is an important issue in the national security andon political pressure on senators to connect the policy and procedure. so if we think about where we are now, the big question becomes if the senate democrats really are feeling very frustrated by senate republicans, what is the issue that they feel so frustrated was so much obstruction that really causes them to break the dam and make the change. >> we do have some calls waiting. >> that you write about it so why is the role of the

parliamentarian important in the senate? in particular with the filibuster? >> the senate parliamentarian job is to be the senate nonpartisan referee on a whole number of issues. that there is one place her job is really important back to what we were talking about with budget reconciliation. with the tools that allow for the absence but then that puts a box what you can and cannot do for this for the legislative process. as the parliamentarian who evaluates the various pieces of the reconciliation bill the way theco senate has in the past

and gives advice to the senate whether something is allowed are not allowed to be done. >> the most recent ruling was on the $15 an hour piece of the covid bill? >> absolutely. >> that was being worked on and the american rescue plan the parliamentarian said raising minimum wage is not permissible under the rules of the reconciliation process. so that got removed from the bill that could pass. given that democrats are likely even setting aside what they might do for the rest of this calendar year and next one as well. you will hear more about her process.

>> now to the listeners new york democratic line. >>caller: thank you very much. i have a few points about this. procedure versus substance the rule about cloture has effectively change the rule how many are needed to pass and have changed our democracy into something else. the shelby county decision talks about ending section five of the voting rights act with the dignity of the southern states what does that say about the dignity of the northern states even with a 50/50 vote in the senate, have to get 20 or 40 million more people to get the 50 percent as he is 70 or 60 percent cloture? democrats having to get

50 million people on their side. which is totally nondemocratic but the 15th amendment that created the income tax skipped over proportional taxation of the states by population let the federal government reach out and tax individuals based on their individual income. if that's the case i don't know why that is not establish payment fascia right of individuals as they are presented to decide things about taxation and spending. we ended proportional taxation when we wentha to income tax and that taxation without equal representation the same reason

we brokeh away britain. a total lack of civic education most people are detrimental by the system with the unequal senate voting power and the added injury of the filibuster most people are not accepted but most people they don't know the math and the people in the senate should be talking about that on either side as if they were school teachers. whenever they are on camera because most people don't know how to be cheated. >> this brings up points about the filibuster. first mentioning the supreme court decision and shelby county and the way one of the issues that is at the center is the question of voting rights with the filibuster history in the middle part of the 20th century and the between the filibuster and preventing legislation on voting r rights and that's a close one.

there are numerous examples of high profile filibusters. and then to prevent that kind of legislation moving forward. >> but that right now what kinds of issues or make of voting rights but we did see black summer and and obama came out and said that is an important connection but one high-profile individual in the democratic party connecting that procedural change with a particular policy issues withg the thing also mentioned is

that they have to senators with apportionment. that affects the power so with that in place, it is the case so that is and then and then the majority of senators want to. >> and then the new georgia senators said that it is a contradiction to say you must protect minority rights in the senate by refusing to protect minority rights in our society. >> my mom - - matt from ohio democratic line. >> good morning.

my take is that so with the good things in shootings, i think you deny the democrats eliminate this because it thing on - - seems like things keep happening and there are issues the country needs to get on the right track like infrastructure the economy, jobs, climate change and many more issues. too many things have been solved to get at 60 votes the total history strom thurmond but when jim crow was starting

it is really a racist mechanism to have the southern whites gain the power and they still use it today they are getting rid of the voting rights and introducing voting restrictions and many legislatures. so even people independent that we can see what they are doing. it is the most lax a days ago and do nothing country. >> up next the first point on the work awaiting the senate the amount of work in the longer applicable to today.

>> yes. one of theg interesting things about but it is really tied to how much does the senate have to do? in the early 1970s when the d senate workload was increasing more and more the senate needed to be doing one of the responses to that on the part of the senate majority leader at the time was to rework the way the filibuster operated so it was deemed a filibuster you can set it aside and move on to something else instead of staying just focused on the issue that was filibustered. this was designed to be a change to help the senate manage growing and busy schedule. but one consequence maybe it's

easier for folks to stop it from happening because no longer do you have to go to the store and give extended speeches or otherwise try to actively stop something you could just signal. >> the afl-cio executive cancel says the very survival of the democratic republic is at stake standing in its way is a procedure to allow the minority to block the majority. and artifact of jim crow of white supremacy a procedure said to encourage robust debate but has turned into an instrument of government paralysis a tool used by those seeking to preserve the social and economic and political status quo the afl has long opposed in a matter of principle rooted in racism. next david from ohio.

>> top of the morning to you. two items i would like to bring up the filibuster maintains the minority will rule that is based on 41 senatorst to vote against or for something. the second point i would like to stand on the analysis of the senate of the set up there are five states alaska, wyoming, north dakota, south dakota that have less than 7 million people total but then you have california and texas that have over 70 million people with only two senators you have a natural filibuster the way it is set up to maintain the minority rules. have a great day.

>> so again bringing up the feature of the senate and the way the apportionment that every state has two senators interacts with the procedure in this case talking about the filibuster and it does mean that a set of senators who represent a numerical minority of the population can prevent things that a majority of senators are trying to get through. at the end of the day the question always comes back, do you have the support of enough senators and the majority party to make a change to vote the way the senate works? some are from the smaller states so to figure out how to

build that coalition is a big change. >> talk about judiciall nominations. why didn't democrats use the minority dissent clause to prevent the supreme court nomination? democrats seem to oversimplify. >> it seems like it is the rule book. [laughter] >> one thing that's important to remember of the rules of the senate judiciary committee or others that often there are ways to get around them. there are ways to force it out of committee and out onto the floor. but underlying the question is the question about how aggressively should members of the senate and senators use

the rule to try to accomplish their goals andar there is a lot of argument to be as aggressive as possible that if you are really aggressive then sometimes that can also make a difficult person or to impose cost on your colleagues in a way that makes them less likely to go to work with you in the future. we will see sometimes individual senators will say i will aggressively use my individual procedural right. a couple weeks ago what the american rescue plan on the senate floor took many hours that kind of thing.

with there's rights working within the body of 100 people even in the presence of the filibuster cooperation is important. >> and the mitch mcconnell pointing out the potential downfall and how republicans mightt react. >> senators on both sides that they are better off with actualal stability there are noc permanent majorities in american politics so the system that gives both sides a voice benefits everyone in the long-term. that's why 33 of her democratic colleagues said just a few years ago when they

all signed a joint letter insisting rulesru protecting debate to be preserved that's a president biden believed consistently. and then senator biden said an example of the arrogance. that was president biden. and restated the long-held position during the campaign just last year. and the democratic leader said in 2017. senator schumer said the legislative filibuster is the most important i distinction between the senate and the house. that's further protect the 60 vote rule for legislation is a democratic leader in 2017.

democrats didn't just been the last four years supporting the filibuster, they spent four years using it. >> molly reynolds pointing outpo they used it and the key was using history to talk about for the ever-changing of rules of the senate with regard to rules of the filibuster. >> thinking back over the history is a story of when a party in the majority feels frustrated by minority obstruction and then we see a change of majority control and they feel what the majority wants to do but what is worth

noting is for a large chunk and then with and the expectation that they would maintain that majority. and that the way the sun operateded and then then to see more frequent changes in party control to help change the incentive individual members have to use things like the filibuster and refuse to cooperate with the other side. even in the next election. and a piece of historical context and how it has been used. >> a graduate of smith college

a doctor from the university of michigan. next flagstaff arizona tom on the republican line. >>caller. >> i appreciate having the opportunity to be here. i'm upin early i usually watch later in the day. do you believe in the concept of illuminating the filibuster is another raw power grab on behalf of. democrats? the federalist republic not a true democracy and this is what distinguishes us from other countries throughout the world. one of the reasons why we are the greatest country on the face of the earth.

when the democrats and other progressives refer to the filibuster is a vestige of jim crow. putting identity politics intous the discussion what they do under any and all circumstances. they stand on their own 2 feet then they have to resort to injecting emotional into every political topic they put forth. this would be a tremendously destabilizing event for the entire country. it could even spell the beginning of the end of our country as we know it. in some states like it so

upset they are bullied by progressives and democrats most of them in new york and california and massachusetts that some may simply refuse to cooperate entirely with the federal government. a couple of states need the federal government far less than the federal government n needs them. alaska wyoming north dakota oklahoma and texas. any of those could individually stand on her own 2 feet there are many democratic states that are overly reliant on the federal government and rhode island at the top of the list and lastly the best thing that could happen to the country in the next century the united states congress would rotate are all 50 state capitals over the course of the next century. maybe people could get out of washington dc and see what's going on in the rest of the country. what's going on there is not

the rest of the country and the real parts as well. >> but in his earlier past the changes that they have had today have broader societal impact? has that changed with the upheaval? >>. >> with the filibuster the rules are the threshold of the senate needs to get to to debate a final passage it is incredibly important but it's not magic. it won't force agreement among senators that already exist. when you think about what might happen if the roles were changed we have to ask what is out there being stopped right now but there also 50 senate

democrats to agree on the same proposal the majority of house democrats that president biden would sign. and there are certainly issues that fall into that category but it's hard to know how many there are or what exactly they look like. to the point to change the senate rules would be destabilizing, it's important to remember there are certainly lots of pieces of legislation that would likely pass but it is hard to know what they are and what they look like. >> good morning independent line. >> in morning. none of we get rid of the filibuster entirely could beco destabilizing where we could have a situation with the change of the administration

to rescind all the laws of the previous administration. but majority should rule a little more than it does. so i would favor a weakening filibuster without totally eliminating it. so to put the burdenat on the minority to start something where now the burden is on the majority to get the 60 votes, i think at one time in the past you had to get two thirds of the senators that were present at the time to pass something which put a

little more burden on the minority to have people there and i don't know enough to know exactly what should be changed but the filibuster should be weekend so the burden is on the minority. >> calling for the talking filibuster so is it correct should the rules changed to require the filibuster would it prevent them from doing any other business so what is a talking filibuster and what it prevent senate business? >> so the caller raises issues under the umbrella of what would it change and what would it look like?

so the devil is in the details exactly what it would look like may be hard to know but in general it would involve said the senators to signal silently they would be objecting to something they have to go to the floor to speak and land raises one of the most important potential challenges with that problem that if the senate is spending time on one thing and makes it harder to spend time on other things. that underlying logic is that if you increase the cost to members of the minority party that you have to show up that might make them less likely to engage but that cost less for

the majority in terms of the question of what the senate is spending its timeline but in the parliamentary weeds that senators in the majority party look like they have to show up on the senate floor in the course of the conduct. certainly if the minority was trying to make life hard for the majority. and to the colors question , the notion of making changes the way the filibuster works are making it harder to do or .obstructing senators to change the exact way the math is calculated from a share of the senators that are chosen and sworn to those who were present and voting and read actually there, that is one possibility.

but the goal of reform is to increase the cost to those doing the obstruction and engaging but when that happens that doesn't mean there are costs the majority has to bear to get from a-z on a piece of legislation. >>. >> hello. seeming to talk about the filibuster as if it is in the way our forefathers stood up and said this is what we want. we don't want to any of the majority and this young lady is arguing for tyranny of the majority. she is a little young, she hasn't been around a while. in about 30 years she might

speak a little differently because when you live moreac than 30 or 60 years actually have the experience of people. what i see when the democrats don't have their way they stomp their feet they cannot talk intelligent arguments it is always emotion and let's get this cumbersome people who don't think our way just out-of-the-way. >> i think when we think of the connection of the filibuster in the founding was provided for in the constitution it wasn't imagined the way it is today with the development of the

senate and for the senate to be different from the house and each state having to senators and election population in the house and there are important differences between the two chambers. when they talk about the eliminated filibuster i tend to think those arguments are a little bit overblown with the important characteristics of the senate with the longer term more than the house but again the way we imagine the threat filibuster today is light-years away what the founders would have imagined