a hearing on sexual assault in the military. the senate armed services subcommittee hears from survivors and survivor advocates. watch live beginning at 2:30 eastern on c-span, online at c-span.org, or with the free c-span radio app. we are joined by molly reynolds with the brookings institution. we will look this morning at the current issue of the filibuster, the historical and current issue because of potential legislating -- potential legislation. guest: it is good to be here. host: let's start with the historical context. the filibuster is not in the constitution, right? how did it come about? guest: you are right, it is not divided for in the constitution. we get the filibuster as it is used today starting with a quirk of history.

in 1806, the senate was trying to clean up its rulebook and make sure modern legislature had a rulebook that was up to date. they noticed they had on the book a motion they were not using called the motion to move the previous question so they took it out. this made possible the ability later in senate's history for senators to pursue extended debate. this is not being used at the time. there is not the tradition of obstruction we see in the senate. over the course of the next half-century up to the civil war , we see this combination of the senate's procedural rulebook and political interest and tactics by senate -- my senators --

obstruction that starts to look like what we see today. host: people think of the senate as an old body, but according to the filibuster, there is dynamic debate about it over the centuries. no more sir today with the legislation passed by the house along with gun legislation. that will be waiting action in descendant. it is present action for the senate. guest: absolutely. over the sweep of history, what we have seen with the filibuster and other forms of obstruction -- the senate is one side making use of these tools, the ways the rules and procedures allow senators to obstruct action.

they use those tools until the other side gets sufficiently frustrated about the way the other side is using them and preventing action. that is what has produced change . we have seen a number of changes over the course of history. until 1917, the senate did not have a way to cut off debates. what we have now in the form of the closure motion. in the early 20th century, we see that come about. since then we have seen some changes to the way the rule works that generally come out of frustration by one side around a particular issue they are not able to get done. host: molly reynolds has a great piece explaining 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 the debate. over the last 20 years or so, the number of cloture motion filed has skyrocketed. to bring that bill to a close, needing to 60 votes for closure. is that a reflection of the increased partisanship in the senate for the failure of the filibuster rules that exist in descendant to not be able to move legislation over? -- legislation forward? guest: that trend is the product of a couple of things. one is the increase partisanship and polarization we see in the senate. today's senate, it is more typical to get the support of 60

senators in favor of legislation. if you are in the minority party , you have less of an incentive to work with the majority party as you did 40 years ago. that incentivize more minority party obstruction -- that incentivized more minority party obstruction and it made the cloture since her -- the cloture movement more prevalent. the weight it is used now is in some ways a way senate leaders manage the chamber. that is important because even when you're using cloture motions and using it to help set the senate's schedule, the clock and the way the cloture motion affects the calendar means it could take a long time to get

done, even if you have enough votes to end debate and move to final passage. even when you can get that super majority, relying on culture -- relying on the cloture motion slows the senate down. even with what we have seen with president biden's cabinet nominees, we have had cloture motions filed on those. even when those nominees ultimately get confirmed, they can have debate on those nominations ended even with a simple majority because those are not subject to the simple majority. it means having to rely on cloture to manage a filibuster filled senate slows down the senate's business. host: the way we do judicial nominees is different than a normal piece of legislation that would come for the senate from the house? guest: absolutely.

that dates back to two changes to the way the filibuster works. the first one was in 2013, executed by democrats and that was a reduction in the number of votes needed to end debates for lower court nominees and nominees to the executive. in 2017 to confirm neil gorsuch, republicans executed the same change for supreme court's nominees. those change the way that senate's rules work and were made with only 51 votes. there is a way the senate can make changes to the way the filibuster works with a simple majority. we refer to this as the so-called "nuclear option." the senate has a way it can do this. in the past decade or so we have seen this have a couple of times two great consequence. we look forward to possible

changes to the filibuster for legislation, this idea of using the nuclear option of pursuing a rule change -- or change the way the rules operate using just 51 votes is what we are talking about. host: we welcome your questions and comments for molly reynolds on the future of the filibuster in descendant. democrats it is 202-748-8001, republicans -- democrats it is 202-748-8000, republicans 202-748-8001, and others it is 202-748-8002 you can send us -- and you can send us a text at 202-748-8003. "registration awaits action by descendant" -- "legislation awaits action by the senate," and we talked about much of that legislation.

what are the options for majority leader chuck schumer? guest: leader schumer has a few options. number one is to try to determine if any of those proposals would get votes from republicans. he would need at least 10 republicans because the senate is split evenly 50-50. for a lot of those proposals, that is not a real possibility. we have seen lots of reporting and comments from republican senators. a second option available to leader schumer, and we saw this with the american rescue plan, democrats could pursue another round of reconciliation registration -- reconciliation legislation which allow them -- which allows them to pass

legislation without threat of the luster. they kid use that as a ashen they could use that as a vehicle -- they could use that as a vehicle. the third option would be to try to build support in his caucus for some kind of change for the senate rules. whether that is a full on elimination of the filibuster forsythia change in the way the senate operates that would increase the degree to which the opponents of the bill could speak on. there are a number of -- floating around. the question is is there unanimous support the changes in the way the senate works among the democrats?

if there is not, leader schumer is forced back into the first two options until he can get support from his senators for some kind of change. host: you are saying if he does this, he will do it on a piece by piece basis and not just we are ending the filibuster and here is how. guest: it is hard to say. generally when we have seen changes to the way the filibuster works, they are connected to particular policy areas. what has allowed senate majorities to make changes to the way the filibuster works is being united enough around a particular issue and thinking it is important enough to change the way the senate gets things done.

there's a bill in the senate related to army merchant ship's at the outbreak of world war i that is being obstructed and does president wilson who uses that issue to build support for a change in the way the senate works because he says it is an issue, a matter of national security. we are going to connect the policy and the procedure and that is how we will get change. we think about where we are now, where leader schumer is now, the big question becomes if the senate democrats really are feeling frustrated by senate republicans, what is the issue around which they feel so frustrated and are facing so much obstruction that causes them to break the dam on the filibuster and make the change?

host: we do have some calls waiting and i want to get to that. you write about it. why is the role of the parliamentarian important in descendant, in particular when it comes to the filibuster? guest: the senate parliamentarian, her job is to be the senate's nonpartisan referee on a whole number of issues. her job is important and goes back to what we were talking about with regards to budget reconciliation. it is not an unlimited tool. there are rules that put a box around what you can and cannot do through this legislative process. it is the parliamentarian who

evaluates the various pieces of reconciliation bill, the way the senate has used reconciliation in the past, what the rules on paper say, and gives advice to descendant on whether or not something is allowed or is not allowed to be done through that process. host: her most recent ruling was on the $50 an hour piece on the -- the $15 an hour piece on the most recent relief bill. guest: correct. that was art of the american rescue plan. she said it was not permissible under the reconciliation assess -- reconciliation process. that got removed from the bill that was passed. democrats are quite likely to pursue reconciliation aggressively in the rest of this calendar year and potentially

into next calendar year. we will be hearing more about the parliamentarian and her role in this process. host: let's hear from our viewers. first to alan in new york, democrats like. caller: thank you very much. i have a few points about this. depending on how much time we have, we can go into a few of them. this rule about culture -- about cloture has changed the rule about how many are needed to pass and has changed our democracy -- to pass something and has changed our democracy. the shelby county decision talked about ending section five of the voting rights act because supposedly the dignity of the southern states was offended. what does that say about the dignity of the northern states who even when you have a 50-50

vote have to get 20 to 40 million more people on their side to get 60% cloture? you are talking about democrats having to get something like 50 million people on their side to have their way which is totally nondemocratic. the 16th amendment which created the income tax skipped over proportional taxation of the states by population and let the federal government reach out and attacks individuals based on their income. if that is the case, i don't see why that doesn't establish a right of individuals in those states to be proportionately represented in the body that the site thinks about taxation and spending. -- that decides things about taxation and spending.

we have taxation without representation. we have a lack of civic education as most people are being documented by the system that are being detriment it by the system -- are being detrimented by the system. most people don't know the math and the people in descendant should be talking -- the people in the senate should be talking about that. most people don't know they are being cheated. host: thank you for your input. guest: alan brought up a number of important points about the filibuster. he mentioned the supreme court decision in shelby county and the way that one of the issues that is at the center of this debate is the question of voting rights. if you look over the filibuster's history, especially in the middle part of the 20th

century, the connections between the filibuster and preventing legislation on voting rights and civil rights aimed at advancing racial progress is a close one. there are numerous examples of high-profile filibusters and not so high-profile filibusters that have been used to prevent that legislation. as we think about what kind of issues might drive democrats to make a change to the filibuster, some of these questions around voting rights are at the center of that. we saw last summer former president obama at john lewis's funeral saying if it takes eliminating the filibuster to pass legislation, then we should eliminate the filibuster. that is one high-profile individual connecting procedural

change with a policy issue. another thing alan -- allen mentioned is the fact that each state has two senators and how that affects the power of numerical minority in descendant. with the filibuster, it is the case that numerical minorities can prevent something that a majority of senators want to see happen. a number of different dynamics that are important to think about how the filibuster has been used and is being used now. host: rafael warnock ties in the filibuster and voting rights saying "it is a contradiction to say we must protect minority rights in the senate while

refusing to protect one or two rights in our society." from ohio, democrats like. -- democrats line. caller: good morning. i believe the filibuster needs to be eliminated -- if there are important issues going on, for example with the gun things and the mass shootings going on, i think that can unite the democrats to eliminate this thing. it seems like things keep happening. there are a lot of important 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 installed to get to 60 votes. the history of the filibuster is

that it was used to get rid of black power in the south when jim crow was starting. it is really a racist mechanism to have the southern wife -- southern white holding power. they are introducing voting restrictions in many state legislatures. i think it is so blatant that even independence -- independents and democrats, we can see what they are doing. i say it is the most lax of physical -- laxity sickle -- it is the most relaxed body in the country. host: the work awaiting descendant, sometimes the

filibuster seems like a relic of the older senate that is no longer really applicable to today. guest: yeah, one of the interesting things about the development of how the filibuster is being used is that it is tied to this question of how much to the senate have to do. in the early 1970's when the senate's workload was increasing, descendant had a more it 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 that if something was being filibustered, the senate could set it aside and moved to something else as opposed to having to stay focused on the

issue being filibustered. this was designed to be a change that would help descendant manage its growing schedule. one consequence made it easier for folks trying to oppose something to stop it from happening. no longer did you have to go to the floor and get -- and gives extended speeches -- and give extended speeches or try to actively stop something. you could just signal host:host: -- -- host: "the very survival of our democratic republic is at stake. the filibuster, and the artifact of jim crow and a creature of white supremacy, a procedure that was said to encourage robust debates but has turned into governmental paralysis.

it preserves the status quo th