Commentary: Recent legislation to create permanent wilderness areas within the Organ Mountains-Desert Peaks National Monument will provide a nice sendoff for U.S. Sen. Tom Udall, who has announced that he will not seek re-election in 2020.
The bill, which was signed into law on March 12, designates more than 1.3 million acres of new wilderness areas, along with expanding national parks, establishing new national monuments and making the Land and Water Conservation Fund permanent.
In New Mexico, new wilderness areas will be created for both the OM-DP and the Rio Grande del Norte National Monument in the northern part of the state. The 241,554 acres of new wilderness in Doña Ana County had previously been designated as wilderness study areas, a designation maintained long after any federal studies had been completed.
The bill is the culmination of an effort that was started by former Sen. Jeff Bingaman in 2009, and then taken up by Sens. Udall and Martin Heinrich.
The protection of public lands is one of several legislative accomplishments that Udall can claim as he prepares to leave office. But there is one policy goal that I was pleased he did not achieve.
In 2013, Udall joined with Jeff Merkley of Oregon in seeking to end the filibuster rule as it currently exists. Along with Tom Harkin of Iowa, they sought to push through a change on the opening day of the session, arguing that rules can be amended at the start of each new Congress with just a simple majority vote.
They wanted to go back to the “talking filibuster,” made famous by Jimmy Stewart in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington,” requiring senators to hold the floor through endless monologue in order to block legislation.
Udall’s frustration as a fairly new senator at that time, after having served in the House of Representatives for 10 years, was understandable. Democrats had been in control of the Senate ever since his first term in 2009. And, Republicans had become more assertive in their use of the filibuster, requiring 60 votes to accomplish anything.
His argument that the filibuster had never been used in that way before was historically accurate. Until 1970, a filibuster on any one bill would hold up action on not just that bill, but the entire Senate. In 1975 they changed the cloture rule, establishing the 60-vote threshold.
Use of the filibuster exploded during the years from 2007 to 2013, when Udall was first elected to the Senate and Harry Reid was majority leader. Republicans argued that they were responding to procedural maneuvers by Reid to prevent them from offering any amendments to bills.
Whatever the reason, a new standard was set. According to the group No Labels, there were 413 filibusters in all the years until 1990. In the last 12 years, there have been nearly 600. They note that with the filibuster, senators representing just 11 percent of the population can block a bill.
And that’s frustrating. A raise to the federal minimum wage and comprehensive immigration reform are just two issues that have been stalled by the filibuster.
To his credit, Udall retained his philosophical opposition to the filibuster even after the Republicans had regained the majority. But that did not stop him from exercising the authority of the filibuster during the first two years of the Trump administration when Republicans controlled the House and Senate.
Udall was right in 2013 when he referred to Senate as “a graveyard for good ideas,” but it is also a graveyard for bad ideas. And these days, that seems like a fair tradeoff.
Walter Rubel can be reached at waltrubel@gmail.com