Senate Republicans eye debate rules to ease gridlock

Published 8:15 am Wednesday, January 20, 2016

WASHINGTON – A group of Republican senators frustrated with the inaction of Congress is pushing to get rid of an obstacle that Democrats can use to hold things up.

The senators propose a number of options to ease gridlock but favor one in particular – allowing the Senate to debate a bill with the approval of 51 senators, instead of 60.

“The Senate complains about it, the American people complain about it,” Sen. James Lankford, of Oklahoma, said in an interview last week. “But the Senate sets it’s own rules.”

The approach favored by Lankford and the others on a Senate Republican task force would only lower the threshold to begin debate in the Senate. Agreement of 60 senators is still required to proceed to a vote.

That preserves some of the Senate’s longstanding protections of the minority party and the familiar image of a lone member of Congress defiantly holding up a bill with a filibuster, as in the Frank Capra movie “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”

More controversially, Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas held the Senate floor for 22 hours in September 2013, trying to stop the passage of Obamacare.

Republicans now control 54 Senate seats. Democrats have 44 and the votes of two independents for organizing purposes. Despite their minority, Democrats were able to stall bills last year to de-fund Planned Parenthood and undo President Barack Obama’s immigration reforms. Senate rules require the votes of three-fifths of its 100 members to force a vote.

A change wouldn’t go into effect until next January, and some Republicans worry about it backfiring if this fall’s elections put them in the minority.

Cruz opposes changing the rules, a spokesman said. Last summer the Texas senator and presidential candidate told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that weakening the filibuster process could hurt conservatives.

“I think the legislative filibuster, the super-majority requirement in the Senate, more often than not slows bad liberal, radical ideas … The Senate serves as a saucer to cool the heat of the House,” Cruz said.

The task force members – including Sens. Roy Blunt of Missouri, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, Cory Gardner of Colorado, and Thom Tillis of North Carolina – will present options to other Republicans. The idea of changing the rules will be floated to the Democrats.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Kentucky, said in a statement that he wouldn’t ram through any rule changes with a simple majority vote, a move known as the “nuclear option.”

The proposal will only be adopted if 67 senators go along, he said.

Lankford acknowledged that the idea faces opposition from traditionalists and those who worry it could weaken Republicans power at a later date. But, he said, “the larger philosophical issue is it’s the right thing for the country.”

Former Connecticut Attorney General Clarine Nardi Riddle, co-founder of the group No Labels, which espouses ending partisan gridlock in Congress, hailed the idea.

Blocking a motion to begin debate “can delay the timing of a bill for weeks or months,” she said. “What we want to see is an honest debate.”

Norman Ornstein, a longtime student of Congress and scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said chances are good the Senate adopts the change. Republicans opposed changing the filibuster rules when they were in the minority, he said.

“Now it is in the Republicans self-interest, and the Democrats who supported filibuster reform would have a hard time opposing it,” he said.

Sen. Jim Inhofe, R-Oklahoma, said in a statement he sees benefits to the change, though he is wary.

“There are unintended consequences for every possible rule change, and those are the kinds of things we’re continuing to look into now,” Inhofe said.

Kery Murakami is the Washington, D.C., reporter for CNHI’s newspapers and websites. Reach him at kmurakami@cnhi.com.