Frustrated by regular filibusters and other procedural blockades, Senate Democrats are urging their leadership to negotiate with Republicans to change the rules that govern how the Senate does business.
The Democrats would leave intact the ability of the minority party to filibuster legislation and nominations, meaning that in most cases it would still take 60 votes to get anything done in the Senate. But they want to require senators to be on the floor if they intend to try to debate a bill to death and would make other changes to streamline the Senate’s operations, including ending the practice of secret “holds” by a single senator on legislation or nominees.
Republicans are likely to resist, and should no compromise be found, some Democrats are prepared to propose their own package of rules changes on the first day of the session. Doing so could touch off a bitter floor fight, escalate the already high partisan tensions in the chamber and hinder President Obama’s ability to advance legislation.
In a letter to Senator Harry Reid, the majority leader, Democratic senators expressed “strong sentiment” for ending what they see as Republican misuse of Senate process in recent years.
“We believe the current abuse of the rules by the minority threatens the ability of the Senate to do the necessary work of the nation, and we urge you to take steps to bring these abuses of our rules to an end,” said the Dec. 18 letter signed by 56 Democrats and independents, including all Democratic senators remaining in the Congress that opens Jan. 5.
Republicans have cautioned against any unilateral move to rewrite Senate procedure, saying Democrats would regret it if they fall back into the minority.
“You don’t want to create a freight train running through the Senate like it does in the House because in two years it might be the Tea Party Express,” said Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, the No. 3 Senate Republican. “We need a change in behavior more than a change in rules.”
But some Democrats, frustrated by Republican tactics, say their only option is to change the Senate rules. In the past two years, Republicans have forced more than 90 “cloture” votes which require 60 senators to agree to limit debate on a measure. They say they had no choice since Senator Harry Reid, the Nevada Democrat and majority leader, denied them the opportunity to offer amendments to legislation more than 40 times by doing what is known in the Senate as “filling the amendment tree.”
. Democrats argue that the Constitution and previous Senate rulings allow a simple majority of the Senate to rewrite the rule book on the first day of a new Congress through what they are calling the Constitutional option.
“I am definitely planning to pursue the Constitutional option on the first legislative day,” said Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico, one of several Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008 who have spent months mapping how to overhaul the Senate process. “What will happen as the result of that will depend on the 99 other senators.”
Mr. Udall and others say they do not intend to seek any change that would overturn the Senate’s fundamental requirement that it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and force a final vote on a disputed bill or nomination.
But they say they want, at a minimum, to speed up debate over the initial attempt to bring a measure to the floor and to force senators to be on the floor debating if they are blocking a measure, much like Jimmy Stewart did in the movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.” By contrast, the modern version of the filibuster allows seemingly endless breaks in floor activity with rows of empty desks as a backdrop.
“If you have a passion for something and you want to stand up and rouse the country, then you have to do it,” Mr. Udall said.
Another change under consideration would end the practice of secret “holds,” which allows a single senator to block any piece of legislation or nominee. This change has drawn bipartisan support in recent months.
In working to change the rules, Mr. Udall is following in the footsteps of an earlier senator from New Mexico, Clinton Anderson, who repeatedly pushed to change Senate rules in the 1950s and ultimately won some limited concessions from then Senator Lyndon Baines Johnson, the majority leader.
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
FOR SUBSCRIBERSA harrowing ordeal aboard an Israel-bound plane
FOR SUBSCRIBERSThe debate over AI’s future rages on both coasts
Efforts to tinker with Senate rules tend to make many veteran senators nervous, worried that it could alter the nature of an institution that by design protects the rights of the minority party, seeks to foster consensus building and is not intended to be a strict majoritarian body like the House. The last major change occurred in 1975, when the number of votes needed to overcome a filibuster was reduced from 67 to 60.
In 2005 Senator Bill Frist, then the majority leader, threatened to try to ban filibusters against judicial nominees through what became known as the “nuclear option.” That led to the so-called Gang of 14 agreeing to a compromise on review of judges.
Most Democrats appear to favor a negotiated settlement in the new Congress, and it is not yet clear if there is majority Democratic support for a rules fight on the floor. If the situation did reach that point, much would depend on decisions by Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., the former longtime senator who in his current office serves as president of the Senate.
If Mr. Udall or one of his colleagues went forward, Mr. Biden could have to judge whether the Constitution and Senate precedents allow Democrats to use a simple majority vote to enact a rules change on the first day of Congress rather than gather the 67 votes typically required. Senate Democrats have consulted with Mr. Biden about their plans but say they have no sense of where he might come down, though as a member of the Senate for 36 years he no doubt would think carefully about any abrupt departure from tradition.
In recent weeks, Mr. Reid has been talking to Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican leader, about potential revisions in Senate rules; Mr. Alexander has been consulting with Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat and chairman of the Rules Committee.
The lawmakers would not discuss details of their talks but others knowledgeable about the negotiations said that while Republicans might accept some changes, they were not likely to agree to anything that significantly diluted their minority rights.
They say, for example, that Republicans would resist any changes involving the the initial “motion to proceed” — the first attempt to bring a measure to the floor. Mr. McConnell has perfected the art of using that motion as a vehicle to delay Senate action.
Mr. Alexander said that he believes that the narrower margin in the Senate next year — 53 Democrats and independents, 47 Republicans — will naturally promote more negotiation and lead to fewer filibusters because Democrats will have to win over blocs of Republicans and must ultimately negotiate with the Republican-controlled House as well.
“Even if Democrats were to change the rules,” Mr. Alexander said, “they will gain nothing except the prospect of retribution in two years while destroying the Senate. I am hoping cooler heads will prevail.”
But a Democratic supporter of rules revisions, Senator Claire McCaskill of Missouri, said the time for a change may have arrived.
“There really is getting to be critical mass that this has been both sides of the aisle behaving badly and we need to clean this up,” she said.
This article, "Democrats Seek Changes to Senate Procedures," first appeared in The New York Times.