Senate Rules Reform Fight Likely To Be Drawn Out For Weeks

WASHINGTON -- Operatives leading the lobbying effort for Senate rules reform said Monday that they expect Democrats to delay consideration of the issue until late January in hopes of crystallizing final support for a package of fixes.

It has been widely anticipated that Senate Democratic leadership would make a dramatic attempt on Wednesday, the first day of the new Congress, to revamp the use of the filibuster. But in a brief interview with The Huffington Post, Shane Larson, the legislative director for the Communications Workers of America and a key player in a progressive coalition pushing for rules reform, said that the date for that drama could be pushed back until Jan. 24.

"We don't expect them to vote on this Wednesday or Thursday," said Larson. "They will not adjourn. They will recess, so when they return on the 24th it will still technically be the first day of the legislative session."

By delaying consideration of such a reform measure, Democrats will be giving themselves a larger window to build up support for a final package. The party, according to an operative working on the issue, will consider a variety of proposals this week, including one from Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), who has championed a revision to filibuster rules that would decrease the 60-vote threshold over a series of votes. That approach is not expected to pass, but will serve as the "left flank" of the prospective proposals.

Other Democratic senators, notably Tom Udall (N.M.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Mark Udall (Colo.) are also expected to discuss their proposals for rules reform on the floor this week. After the Senate adjourns, Democrats will likely discuss which provisions stand the best chance of passing, with Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), chair of the chamber's Rules Committee, getting a major say over the composition of the final product.

Expectations were high for Senate Democrats to settle on a package of reforms over the New Year's break, but Larson framed the new timing as a potentially significant boon for final passage of rules reform, noting that leadership could fully nail down the 50-plus votes necessary to push something through via the "constitutional option."

"Up until now, we have not had a real package to rally around, something to get our folks to call their senators to say support this fix," he said. "Now we will actually have one, and if we can come in on the 24th with 53 Democrats to cosponsor the package, it is a done deal. "

Comments

[StatsNpolls1]

01:50 PM on 01/07/2011

Yeah, that was it..

[Dennydorite]

08:15 AM on 01/05/2011

Two years too late. Nice going Dems.

[FatFeline]

01:57 PM on 01/04/2011

Here are some other things that are need of reform in the Senate.

Harry has filled the amendment tree 44 times thus preventing amendments­. This is three times more than any previous majority leader.

Harry has called to end debate via cloture before any amendments could be voted on 29 times. This is over twice as much as any previous majority leader.

Harry has short circuited the committee process (not allowed bills to discussed in committees before a floor vote) 43 times. That is 50% more than any previous majority leader.

The Senate needs to consider how to prevent the Majority Leader from becoming a tyrant like Harry has become.

[JOHNLD777]

05:23 PM on 01/04/2011

You cannot be serious Feline! My gosh there is no more dsyfuntional institution than the U.S. Senate! Reid has had to use every parliamentary manuver to get around those who have put "Country Last" and defeat "Obama First" over the last two years. There could have been 90 democrats and the "Demintted" would still be able to block everything from routine appointments to important legislation. Are we not Constitutionally a country of debate and majority rules at the end of the day?? It's about time the rules change for transparency and bringing cowards out in the open so that the American people and their constituents have input? Party is irrelevant but the process is not!

[teschman]

12:15 PM on 01/04/2011

Mitch McConnell has caused this issue to be promoted to the level it has now reached by his use and abuse of the rule to obstruct. Obstruction has reached unprecedents heights, some on 2nd level appointees. Tom Harkin proposed reform in 96 when his party was in the minority. I think Udall's proposal makes a lot of sense. It still provides for a filibuster but it must have 40 Senators sign on, it would allow the bill to come to the floor and be filibustered on the floor also requiring 40 senators to sign on to the filibuster. This would still allow minority opposition and also debate. Instead of what we have now is a debate not on the bill itself and it's merits or demerits, but on whether or not to vote to on cloture.

[PA Denizen]

08:42 AM on 01/04/2011

I'm not sure what the Democrats are thinking here. Firstly, they don't have a majority in the House, so its not like they're going to get all kinds of favorable legislation anytime in the near future. Meanwhile, things aren't looking good for them for 2012 from a simple number of seats to defend perspective, to say nothing of how things have been going for them politically for the last few years. If they actually do pass this, its likely that they'll have done nothing but make it easier for the Republicans to pass things they want in this Congress by lowering the number of Democrats they have to snag. Oh, and if things go well for Republicans in 2012, the Democrats could find themselves completely unable to block anything. I could see them trying this in early 2009 but now makes no sense.

[troberts1943]

09:07 AM on 01/04/2011

But if the GOP acts as they have in the past if they do
take control of the senate in 2012 they will change the rules
in their favor any way.

[PA Denizen]

09:10 AM on 01/04/2011

You may be right but why the hell would the Democrats pre-empt them on this? It makes no sense whatsoever and if the Republicans do take the Senate in 2012, they'll most likely keep the House and could also have the White House again. This move by the Democrats makes no sense whatsoever, especially from a polical perspective. And I'm a Republican.

[Elvin Frantz]

08:29 AM on 01/04/2011

Calling January 24 the first day of the new congress, which it is not, is not a good idea. It is why people do not like the Congress.

[Chris]

08:27 AM on 01/04/2011

Only in the Seante can 21 days later still be the first day

[Beau2]

07:35 AM on 01/04/2011

With the republicans controlling the House for the next two years, they will feel no real effect from the modification of the filibuster rule.

But, if the republicans take the Senate in 2012, this assault on the ablility of the minority to influence Senate business will make the Senate dems irrelevant.

This is probably going to be a case of, "be careful what you wish for."

[Tunghoy]

07:57 AM on 01/04/2011

Doubtful. Democratic filibusters were far and few between, they were rarely effective and they didn't hold up for long, as (in)Justices Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts can tell you. It's also probable that the next time the Repugs take the majority, they will try to nuke the filibuster altogether, as they already threatened to do.

[Truth Wins]

05:48 AM on 01/04/2011

No excuses. Go for it, Dems. NOW!

[PalmReader]

05:01 AM on 01/04/2011

The Dems will do what they are best at: clawing Defeat from the jaws of Victory! This sounds waaaay to complicated to work. Just do it on the first day and be done with. Why the drama? Wanna grandstand? Then you will loose it all! Not clever...

[AllAmericanAmericanBoy]

02:37 AM on 01/04/2011

So after a *GRUELING* holiday vacation, they return to work on WEDNESDAY ??? And they are expected to recess so that their actual first workday does not come for ANOTHER 3 WEEKS ???

I guess then it's back to that grueling 2-1/2 day a week schedule until their next month off. No wonder they want to drag their feet on changing any rules.

[conservicide]

02:11 AM on 01/04/2011

If republicans all disappeared tomorrow...
double rainbow baby, double rainbow. |;..)

[UofOLaw]

01:53 AM on 01/04/2011

What about senators who serve six year terms?

[ABSORB]

02:08 AM on 01/04/2011

Yes it seems to me that would do a lot more good to change terms to maybe 3 terms tops

[springsm]

12:47 AM on 01/04/2011

So we argue the rules for two years and nothing will be done again.  Oh well..........

[Ken Maddox]

12:25 AM on 01/04/2011

I would stand pat and not allow a single GOP initiative to be brought to the floor. Welcome to reality Mr. McCONnell.