Super congress what is

If the bipartisan committee fails to produce a bill, or Congress is unable to enact the committee's recommendations, automatic cuts would be triggered beginning in shared equally between domestic discretionary and defense programs. Social Security, Medicaid, veterans' benefits, and other essential programs would be exempt. Medicare cuts would be limited to 2 percent and impact providers only, with no cuts for Medicare beneficiaries.

This scenario should serve as a powerful incentive for the bipartisan committee to forge an agreement that puts entitlement and tax reform on the table, but if the Committee fails to find common ground, Congress would likely have to revisit the entire deal sometime between January and January , when the automatic cuts would take effect. Alternatively, the senator presiding over the chamber or the vice president, if he or she is performing that function could disregard the advice provided to him or her by the parliamentarian, undercutting the efficacy of the Byrd Rule.

By winning majorities in both houses of Congress and the White House, Democrats have achieved one necessary condition for filibuster reform: unified party control of Washington. But the filibuster could still survive unified party control. Senators often speak about their principled support for the filibuster.

There would likely need to be a specific measure that majority party senators both agreed upon and cared enough about to make banning the filibuster worth it. In addition, individual senators may find the filibuster useful to their own personal power and policy goals, as it allows them to take measures hostage with the hopes of securing concessions. For majority party leaders, meanwhile, the need to secure 60 votes to end debate helps them to shift blame to the minority party for inaction on issues that are popular with some, but not all, elements of their own party.

Finally, senators may be concerned about the future; in an era of frequent shifts in control of the chamber, legislators may worry that a rule change now will put them at a disadvantage in the near future. Russell Wheeler explains the contemporary proposals to alter the size and structure of the Supreme Court. Darrell West explains the different vote-by-mail systems and addresses fears over the political consequences of mail voting and potential for fraud.

Should we believe him? Voter Vitals Non-partisan, fact-based explainers on important issues for American voters. Multimedia Videos and podcasts on key election issues. About Policy For Media.

Stay Informed Sign up to get Policy updates in your inbox:. Facebook Twitter Instagram. Voter Vitals. The Vitals. The Senate has a number of options for curtailing the use of the filibuster, including by setting a new precedent, changing the rule itself, or placing restrictions on its use.

Use of the Senate cloture rule has become far more common in the 21st century. More cloture motions have been filed in the last two decades than in the 80 years prior. A Closer Look. Where did the filibuster come from? How has the use of the filibuster changed over time? Many students and coaches argue that the national circuit has developed its own style, which has arisen as a result of areas where Congress is offered with greater frequency, and whose students travel more often and ascribe to that same style.

I LOVE it! I wish more students took it more seriously, because your students keep things moving well in sessions, and know how to deal with various situations. Speaking of minutiae of parliamentary procedure, I really would like students to use the correct terms of art when voting. Personally, I always coach students to find their own style, rather than to merely imitate the way they see other students debating. Uniqueness, not sameness, is an important strategy for students to consider. One saddening trend I have noticed in the activity is how students are less able to think spontaneously as they did ten years ago.

Amendments used to introduce new dynamism in debate, by introducing, essentially, counterplans and permutations of ideas in bills. Back when only titles of legislation were released ahead of tournaments in many areas, students had to have broader research prepared much like Extemporaneous Speakers. Speaker recognition has been one of the most contentious issues in Congressional Debate. As alluded to earlier, precedence — those who have spoken least — was created to ensure that all students had an equal opportunity to be scored on the Base System.

Through the years, the trend of using recency — those who spoke earlier — was often employed by presiding officers, but not universally. The committee proposed a codification of this to reflect what students were doing, and to try to bring more consistency to presiding. The age-old problem that has plagued presiding officers has been how to fairly call on speakers before precedence and are established. Each of these created additional rules for the game, which created a variety of strategies that only disenfranchised or confused students, so the NSDA Board prohibited those protocols, instead, telling presiding officers to randomly select speakers before precedence and recency are established.

Another trend at a number of national circuit tournaments that has aggravated some coaches is the protocol to only allow students the opportunity to speak twice in final rounds. While this has equalized opportunities to speak, it also has created a dynamic wherein students are hesitant to give authorship speeches, and where students jockey to speak last to the point where no one seeks to speak for the several speeches leading up to the last speech!

Unfortunately, this has evolved due to a lack of a proper approach to ranking by judges. One of the best explanations I have ever heard for judging Congressional Debate was given by Dr. Alexandra Vigars NC , who went through the specific different types of speeches on an item of legislation. She explicates for judges the value of the sponsorship speech: to lay the foundation for the affirmative position, as well as to justify the need for the particular policy advocated by the bill.

The first negative constructs the negative position, debunking any need for change that the status quo is better than alternatives or not broken at all , and that the policy itself is flawed. While crystallizing is often seen by debaters as the apex of debate on an issue, the other speeches are important, and the full spectrum of debate on a bill cannot happen without them. Just as considering a presiding officer among speakers in a round is like comparing apples and oranges, comparing speeches early or late in debate on a particular bill is like comparing McIntosh, Honeycrisp, Delicious, Granny Smith, and Braeburn apples!

At many high-level tournaments, every student in a chamber feels the need to speak on each item of legislation.

This is especially problematic for legislation lacking nuance, where students cannot focus on the myriad details of implementation and efficacy. Some coaches, such as Jay Stubbs TX , have advocated for limiting debate, by tournament rules, to a particular length of time for each item of legislation. Other coaches have criticized this approach, concerned that it upsets the dynamism established by the complexity of the legislation and the relative quality and self-determination of students in the room.

Within competitive culture in some areas, it is seem as taboo to move the previous question if there are students who still wish to speak. The misunderstanding of the purpose of the Previous Question is a whole other pet peeve of mine! This motion exists for the sole purpose of ending debate to proceed to another issue if enough voices at least a two-thirds majority feel that adequate discussion has happened.

Unfortunately, students also abuse this motion when debate naturally ends, feeling they cannot proceed to voting if they have not yet moved the previous question. This is simply not true!