On Thursday Republicans in the U.S. Senate again successfully filibustered efforts to extend unemployment benefits for an estimated 1.7 million people whose benefits ran out at the end of 2013. Senate rules still require 60 yes votes to approve most motions and bills, with the exception of budget legislation and most confirmation votes. As Ramsey Cox reported for The Hill, Democrats fell one vote short of the 60 needed to end debate on extending unemployment benefits. The roll call shows that four Republicans and all Democrats present voted yes, except for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, who switched to “no” to preserve his right to bring the bill up again later. Iowa’s Senator Chuck Grassley was among the 40 Republicans who filibustered the effort to end debate.

A little later, Senators rejected a separate procedural motion to end debate on the bill to extend unemployment benefits by a mostly party-line vote. Again, Senator Tom Harkin voted to end debate, while Grassley was part of the Republican filibuster.

A similar story played out last month when Senate leaders attempted to move a bill extending unemployment benefits. Grassley and most Senate Republicans failed to block a motion to proceed to debating the bill and failed to table the measure by sending it back to the Finance Committee, but successfully kept Senate Democrats from getting the 60 votes needed to end debate on that bill. Harkin repeatedly voted to advance legislation on extending the benefits.

In a statement enclosed below, Harkin vowed that the latest vote “is not the end of the line” and said he will keep fighting to extend unemployment coverage workers “have earned and so rightly deserve.”

I have not seen any statement from Grassley directly explaining his refusal to extend unemployment benefits, but after the jump I’ve posted relevant excerpts from a floor speech he gave last month, objecting to limits on the Senate minority’s ability to offer amendments during floor debate.

Also on Thursday, senators confirmed longtime Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus of Montana to be the next U.S. ambassador to China. The vote was unanimous, except that Baucus himself voted “present.”

Senate HELP Committee press release, February 6:

Harkin: Senate Minority Blocks Unemployment Insurance Extension, Putting Politics Before Needs of Working Families

WASHINGTON-Today, Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee, released the following statement after Senate Republicans blocked a restoration of federal unemployment insurance (UI) from moving forward. The proposal, which was fully paid-for, would have restored federal unemployment insurance for three months for the 1.7 million Americans who lost their benefits when they expired on December 28, in order to give Congress additional time to work out a longer extension of UI.

“Today’s Senate vote was a critical opportunity to bring a much-needed boost-through the restoration of unemployment insurance-to 1.7 million Americans, including 7,100 Iowans, looking for work and trying to make ends meet. But once again, too many of my colleagues put politics before the needs of struggling families around the country,” Harkin said. “Federal unemployment insurance is a lifeline for working families-and as our economy continues to recover, the most important thing we can do is to give jobseekers the resources they need to find a new job and get back on track.

“Today’s vote, however, is not the end of the line.  I will continue the fight to extend unemployment insurance and to get workers the UI coverage they have earned and so rightly deserve.”

The unemployment insurance system is a partnership between the federal government and state governments that provides a temporary weekly benefit to qualified workers who lose their job through no fault of their own and are seeking work. The amount of that benefit is based in part on a worker’s past earnings.  In Iowa, the average weekly payment for the federal UI program is $291.

Excerpts:

Floor Speech by Senator Chuck Grassley on How the Senate Should Work

Delivered Monday, January 13, 2014

Senator McConnell has made a very important call to restore the Senate as the great deliberative body it was designed to be.

I would like to continue to add my voice to that call and expand on some observations I have made previously before the Senate.

The U.S. Senate is a unique body designed with a unique purpose in mind.

In Federalist Paper 62, attributed to the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, the unique role of the U.S. Senate is explained:

“The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.”

When Madison talks about “factious leaders” and “intemperate and pernicious resolutions” he basically means what we call partisanship and the “my way or the highway” approach to legislating that is all too common these days.

What might come as a shock to anyone who has followed the United States Senate lately is the fact that the Senate was specifically designed to check partisan passions and ensure that Americans of all stripes are fairly represented though a deliberative process.

Clearly the Senate is not fulfilling the role the Framers of the Constitution intended. […]

What’s unique about the Senate is that the rules and traditions force senators to work together to prevent an “overbearing majority” from steamrolling the minority party.

Because the rules of the Senate are built around consensus, as opposed to the House of Representatives where the majority party dominates, it forces senators of all parties to listen to each other and work together.

At least that was true for most of my time in the Senate.

That has changed in recent years.

If anyone wonders why the tone in Washington has become so heated recently, the loss of the Senate as a deliberative body is certainly a big factor.

There’s an apocryphal story, that may or may not be historically accurate, but which certainly depicts how the Senate was intended to function.

The story goes that when Jefferson returned from France where he was serving during the Constitutional Convention, he asked George Washington why the Senate had been created.

Washington replied by asking Jefferson “Why did you pour that tea into your saucer?”

“To cool it,” said Jefferson.

“Even so,” responded Washington, “we pour legislation into the senatorial saucer to cool it.”

In the House of Representatives, the Rules Committee sets out the terms of debate for each bill.

If you want to offer an amendment in the House, you have to go hat in hand to the Rules Committee and ask permission.

If the House leadership doesn’t like your amendment, you’re out of luck.

By contrast, the Senate has a tradition of allowing extensive debate and amendments by any senator without prior approval by anybody.

However, that tradition has gone out the window under the current majority leadership.

We have seen an unprecedented abuse of cloture motions to cut off the deliberative process paired with a tactic called “filling the tree” to block amendments being considered.

The Senate Majority Leader has effectively become a one-man version of the House Rules Committee, dictating what amendments will be debated and which ones will never see the light of day.

He has done so again on the unemployment bill currently before the Senate.

In fact, he’s been quite unashamed about saying that he is not going to allow any amendments.

This strips the ability of individual senators to effectively represent their state, regardless of party.

Blocking amendments also virtually guarantees that any legislation the Senate votes on will be more partisan in nature, violating the very purpose of the Senate according to James Madison.

By empowering the majority leader at the expense of individual senators, the people of the 50 states lose their voice in the Senate and party leaders get their way instead.

The people of Iowa sent me to the United States Senate to represent them, not to simply vote up or down on a purely partisan agenda dictated by the Majority Leader.

Everyone complains about the lack of bipartisanship these days, but there is no opportunity for individual senators to work together across the aisle when legislation is drafted on a partisan basis and amendments are blocked.

Bipartisanship requires giving individual senators a voice, regardless of party.

That’s the only way to get things done in the Senate.

In the last decade, when I was Chairman of the Finance Committee, and Republicans controlled the Senate, we wanted to actually get things done.

In order for that to happen, we knew we had to accommodate the minority.

We had to have patience, humility, and respect for the minority, attributes that don’t exist on the other side anymore.

And we had some major bipartisan accomplishments, from the largest tax cut in history to a Medicare prescription drug program to numerous trade agreements.

Those kind of major bills don’t happen anymore.

The Senate rules provide that any senator may offer an amendment regardless of party affiliation.

Each senator represents hundreds of thousands to millions of Americans and each has an individual right to offer amendments for consideration.

The principle here isn’t about political parties having their say, but duly elected senators participating in the legislative process.

Again, as part of our duty to represent the citizens of our respective states, each senator has an individual right to offer amendments.

This right cannot be outsourced to party leaders.

The longstanding tradition of the Senate is that members of the minority party, as well as rank and file members of the majority party, have an opportunity to offer amendments for a vote by the Senate.

The now routine practice of “filling the tree” to block amendments has been a major factor in the destruction on the Senate as a deliberative body.

This is usually combined with filing cloture to cut off further consideration of a bill, which has occurred to a truly unprecedented extent.

In a deliberative body, debate and amendments are essential so cloture should be rare and the abuse of cloture strikes to the very heart of the how the Senate is intended to operate.

It is important to note that the majority leader has tried to pass off the cloture motions he has filed, which are attempts by the majority party to silence the minority party, as Republican filibusters. […]

Even where the majority leader has decided he’s going to be open to amendments, he has created, out of whole cloth, new restrictions to limit senators’ rights.

First, he normally only opens up the amendment process if there’s an agreement to limit amendments.

And, this is usually only a handful or so.

Then, he has magically determined that only “germane” or “relevant” amendments can be considered.

Of course, nowhere do the Senate rules require amendments to be germane, other than post cloture.

Senators elected in the last few years appear to be ignorant of this fact.

You’ll hear some senators here argue against an amendment saying it’s non-germane or non-relevant.

They’ve totally fallen for the majority leader’s creative rulemaking, thus giving up one of their rights as a senator with which to represent their state.

I can’t count how many non-germane or non-relevant amendments I had to allow votes on when I processed bills when Republicans were in charge.

They were usually tough, political votes, but we took them because we wanted to get things done.

You don’t see that nowadays.

The current majority avoids tough votes at all costs.

And that’s why they don’t get much done.

The American people sent us here to represent them.

That means voting, not avoiding tough votes.

We sometimes hear that this is a question of majority rule versus minority obstruction.

Again, that ignores that each senator is elected to represent their state, not simply to be an agent of their party. […]

Until we put an end to the abuse of cloture and the blocking of amendments, the Senate cannot function as the Framers intended.

We must bring back the Senate as a deliberative body.

Our politics today desperately need the cooling saucer of the Senate.

The action by the majority leader to make it easier to consider nominations on a purely partisan basis went in the wrong direction.

In the face of bipartisan opposition and with no Republican votes, the so called “nuclear option” established a precedent effectively overruling the rules on the books.

A better move would be for the Senate to establish the precedent that filling the tree and abusing cloture to block a full amendment process is illegitimate.

It’s time to restore the Senate so it can fulfill its Constitutional role.

Senator McConnell has made a thoughtful and well-reasoned appeal and I hope my colleagues will listen for the sake of this institution and the country as a whole.