Move to Kill Filibuster Gaining Steam Among Democrats

Jimmy Stewart made the filibuster famous in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington," but Senate Democrats may make the filibuster history if they get their way.

At least three Democratic senators have floated ideas to reform the filibuster process and otherwise reduce the ability of Republicans to slow progress in the Senate. And Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Wednesday he will hold hearings on the issue in the Senate Rules Committee, which he chairs.

"Most of our Democrats are in support of seeing what can be done because the filibuster has slowed the Senate down to a crawl," Schumer said.

Sen. Ben Cardin (D-Md.) squared off against Sen. Jim Bunning (R-Ky.) last week when the Republican delayed by five days consideration of a bill to extend unemployment benefits because Bunning objected to using deficit spending to finance it. A threatened filibuster on the health care overhaul has Senate Democrats already planning a way around it.

"One of the real frustrations is not just the delay tactics Republicans have used, it's that the American public doesn't understand why we can't bring bills up when we have the majority of the Senate," Cardin said. "The Republicans are using their rights, but they're using them frequently and, we think, abusing them."

The filibuster is a technique used in the Senate to delay or block a measure through the delivery of long speeches, introduction of seemingly endless amendments, and other tactics. In some cases, even the mere threat of a filibuster can tie up legislation.

In addition to whatever Schumer might craft after his hearing, at least three ideas are on the table from Democratic senators looking for ways to rein in the 41 Republicans in their chamber.

Veteran lawmaker Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa is proposing a process to reduce the number of votes required to override a filibuster from 60 to 51, while a bill from freshman Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado would end the longstanding practice of allowing senators to place an anonymous "hold" on a bill, which means it cannot be considered until the unknown senator lifts his or her objections. Beyond legislation, Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.) has suggested that Democrats simply adopt new rules when the Senate convenes in January 2011. Approving new Senate rules, which happens every two years, requires just 51 votes; changing the rules requires more.

Republicans warn that even though their side considered getting rid of the filibuster after Democrats repeatedly held up President George W. Bush's judicial nominees, a similar move by Democrats would have a toxic effect on the functions of an already dysfunctional Senate.

"It would poison the relationship and it would damage the country," said Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.). "If you think about what would happen next, if they change the rules today and they lose the Congress in November, then they lose their minority rights. And as Sen. Robert Byrd has often said, sometimes the minority can be right."

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) said that changing the rules would also violate the intention of Founding Fathers like Thomas Jefferson, who famously described the Senate as the "cooling saucer" for the hot rhetoric of the House.

"What Democrats are saying is we don't agree with the Founders that the Senate ought to be different than the House, and that the rights of the minority should always be protected," Coburn said. "The idea of the Senate being a place where we have to form consensus in order to make major changes to the country should not be put off lightly. That's what's best for the country. It works well."

In truth, the filibuster is not mentioned at all in the Constitution, which simply states that the membership of the House and Senate are responsible for passing their own rules. But Jefferson did write extensively about the importance of rules that would protect the rights of the minority party in the Senate and living by these rules religiously.

The question of the rights of the minority has continued ever since. For more than 100 years, the Senate allowed unlimited debate, but senators tried frequently to find a way to move their legislation forward. In 1917, the Senate changed its rules to say that a vote of two-thirds of the Senate could end a debate, and the Senate used the procedure -- called cloture -- for the first time in 1919 to pass the Treaty of Versailles. In 1975, senators changed the rules again to say that three-fifths, or 60 votes, could end debate.

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), a member of Schumer's Rules Committee, said he would not be in favor of changing the filibuster rule today, even though he feels Republicans have abused the process lately. "When you're in the minority, the filibuster looks pretty good," he said. "When you're in the majority, it doesn't. This is something you don't change just because it's not working in your favor when you're in the majority."

Until this week, the most obvious reason to assume that Democrats would not try to change filibuster rules was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's dismissal of the idea. Reid often brushed off questions about it in recent weeks, saying there was no point in discussing the rules when he would need 67 votes to change them.

But on Wednesday afternoon, Reid strategically changed his tune in front of an audience that would be eager to hear it. At an invitation-only session for liberal bloggers, many of whom have criticized him for not being tough enough on Republicans in the past, Reid said, "The filibuster has been abused. But next Congress, we are going to take a look at it. And we're going to make some changes in it."