Security - What's New - Archive

WomenMatter will continuously post updates on all this and other issues as we monitor the continuing philosophical and practical debates nationwide. Please check back often for updates. Past updates are available for reference on the Security Archives page.

How the System Works: A Day in the Life of the Senate

When we look closely at a day in the life of the Senate, we see why it is important to align ourselves with the party that best represents our ideas and values.

Senators have a wide variety of political and philosophical opinions, just as ordinary Americans do, but legislators band together, usually along party lines. Since our representatives make compromises in order to support their parties, we must always consider political parties when voting.

On July 8, 2004, the importance of the political party was especially clear to anyone watching the Senate.

July 8 - What Happened

The day began with a debate about lawsuits that allow consumers to group together to sue large companies, a.k.a. class-action lawsuits. Republicans supported a bill, the Class Action Fairness Act of 2004, that would shift these lawsuits from state courts to federal courts, a reform that they say would discourage attorneys from soliciting state courts that have reputations for granting huge damage rewards.

This bill’s supporters (which included a few Democrats) claim that many class-action lawsuits are little more than gimmicks, since current law allows attorneys to walk away with millions while the consumers they represent receive little. The bill would have limited lawyers’ fees on some lawsuits and prohibited settlements in which plaintiffs lose money.

Most Democrats disagree with the bill because they say it interferes with Americans’ right to sue corporations. The bill would shift any lawsuit with $5 million or more at stake to federal courts. Legal experts say federal courts tend to side with corporations.

But the merit of the Class Action Fairness Act was no longer the issue since Republicans had forbidden Democrats to add amendments to the bill.

Filling the amendment tree

Majority leader Bill Frist (R-Tennessee) employed a seldom-used tactic to prevent Democrats from adding amendments that may have killed the bill. Frist "filled the amendment tree" with his own amendments, thereby blocking any amendments he did not want debated.

In response, Democrats blocked, or, filibustered the Class Action Fairness Act. Even those Democrats who initially supported the bill participated in delaying it since they were frustrated by the majority’s methods to control the legislative process. For more information on filibustering, click here.

Attempt at compromise

Two of the bill’s Democratic supporters, Christopher J. Dodd of Connecticut and Thomas R. Carper of Delaware, tried to compromise with Republicans and promised to offer only four amendments that were unrelated to the bill, called non-germane amendments.

These four amendments were particularly important to Democrats: a reduction in global warming, a raise in the minimum wage, increased rights for native Hawaiians, and mental health equality in insurance.

Majority leader Frist refused to hear these amendments and attempted to override the filibuster by calling for a vote to stop it - this vote is called a cloture vote and requires 60 votes in favor - but Frist’s attempt to invoke cloture failed with just 44 votes. In response, Frist suspended debate on the bill, thereby abandoning it.

The process obstructed or the process in action?

Both Republicans and Democrats are calling the other side "obstructionists" for impeding the legislative process. But is the process obstructed or flooded?

Both sides are using the process to attempt to pass and block legislation that is important to the party. Party members must stick together in order to use mechanisms like the filibuster. For the filibuster to work, minority members must agree with one another and create a unified party. Senate action is very much party-based, so when we vote for the Senator, we vote for the party.

Changing the subject to security

Amid Republicans’ speeches about the Class Action Fairness Act and why Democrats should not block it, Hillary Clinton changed the subject.

Clinton made a parliamentary protest - she asked why legislators were squabbling over class-action lawsuits when the nation’s security was at immediate risk.

Clinton gave a passionate speech about Congress’ responsibility to national security. She claimed security to be the most important issue on the body’s docket and charged that Republicans were keeping legislators from passing the fiscal 2005 Homeland Security spending bill, which would give funding to security and emergency efforts.

Clinton reminded lawmakers of that morning’s security briefing, saying the new threat warning issued by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge was all the more reason to stop fighting about class-action lawsuits and start doing something about security.

According to Congressional Quarterly, Clinton’s speech was an attempt to derail the Republican floor agenda, an agenda to debate issues important to the Republican Party’s base of voters - tort reform and gay marriage.

Clinton succeeded in disrupting the Republican plan for a little while - Republicans were forced to acknowledge the importance of homeland security and concede to discuss it under certain conditions. Those conditions were a short debate (Republican leadership decided that they must come to a vote by Monday at 5:30 PM, and this was Thursday afternoon) and a limit to amendments (they knew Democrats would want to add amendments).

Of course, minority leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota could not agree to these terms; he said that two travel days (Friday and Monday are travel days for Senators flying home and back for the weekend) was simply not enough time to debate the Homeland Security spending bill. He also resented the idea of not being able to add amendments.

Republican response

Republicans faulted Clinton for using the morning’s security briefing (which they claim provided no new information) to push the issue of homeland security; they say Democrats want a highly visible discussion of Bush’s security policies before the Democratic National Convention at the end of July 2004.

Republicans are not arguing that the Homeland Security spending bill is not important. As Clinton pointed out, it provides funding to strengthen rail, port, and chemical plant security. But Republicans do not believe it is as urgent as she does, since it appropriates money for the fiscal year starting October 1, 2004.

Clinton’s speech had a sense of urgency that suggested that this bill would help protect Americans during the summer. Both Democrats and Republicans want to seem tough on terror, since homeland security is a top issue for all of us.

Election year

By observing the Senate on July 8, 2004, or on any day for that matter, we can see the great importance of political parties in our political system. When we vote for a representative, we vote for his or her party as well. And both parties are vying for our votes.

WomenMatter tracks the activity of political parties as well as political candidates. To inform yourself, explore our Nine Life Issues. When you find one (or two or three) that really matters to you, sign up for an e alert and we’ll keep you posted. Be sure to register to vote and to contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 7/20/2004