We have another entry (though not a new entrant) in the Senate rules reform sweepstakes, this one from Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO). Udall has a prior entry in the game, S. Res. 662 in the 111th Congress, which is largely the same as his new proposal, S. Res. 12.
Udall's own brief summary of the resolution's proposal:
Senator Udall's proposal has seven major provisions, which would:
• Level the playing field between the majority and the minority on cloture votes;
• Provide a way to amend a bill when the majority leader is blocking new amendments;
• Shorten the time frame required to stop a filibuster;
• Reduce the number of votes required to end debate on a single bill;
• End the reading of amendments when they are made available in advance;
• Eliminate unnecessary delay on judicial nominations; and
• End the requirement that Senate committees seek consent to hold meetings.
How? Let's review.
1. Leveling the playing field. This is about burden-shifting, at least to some extent. It doesn't do what the proposal of Sen. Al Franken (D-MN)does, which is require a 2/5ths vote to sustain a filibuster rather than a 3/5ths vote to end one, but instead changes the requirement for cloture from 3/5ths of Senators "duly chosen and sworn" to 3/5ths of Senators "present and voting." The "duly chosen and sworn" formulation is what keeps the threshold at a hard 60 votes when there are 99 or 100 Senators in office. It's also the provision that means a 59-0 vote on cloture is still a loser. And that is part of why a filibuster can be maintained with minimal floor presence from the objecting minority. If everybody shows up and votes, it'd still take 60 votes to end a filibuster. But you have to show up and you have to stay available to vote.
2. Amending a bill when amendments are blocked. This, as we learned when we analyzed the proposals from Sens. Jeff Merkley (D-OR) and Tom Udall (D-NM), addresses what is said to be the chief concern of Republicans in how the Senate is operating. When challenged on their use of the filibuster, Republicans almost always point to their inability to offer amendments on bills when the Majority Leader "fills the amendment tree," and this blockage is what they say motivates their blockage of most of the legislative agenda. The Merkley and Tom Udall proposals address this -- currently, at least -- by granting each side three filibuster-proof amendments once cloture is invoked and there's a clear path to a yes-or-no vote on final passage. Mark Udall's proposal differs in that it instead permits Senators one opportunity per calendar day to offer a non-debatable motion to set aside the amendment rules and offer a germane amendment regardless of the restrictions of the "amendment tree," up to a total of five times per calendar day. The proposal is silent, however, on whether amendments considered after such waivers would themselves be subject to a filibuster. And silence here means that yes, they would be. Not necessarily a bad thing, mind you. But there it is.
3. Shortening the time frame. Fairly straightforward here: a cloture motion "ripens" for a vote 24 hours after filing, instead of the arcane formulation requiring a full calendar day plus one hour to pass.
4. Reducing the number of votes needed to end debate. This refers to the number of times that votes would need to be held, rather than the threshold needed to invoke cloture (though see #1). It makes the motion to proceed debatable for a maximum of 4 hours (Merkley originally proposed no debate, Tom Udall two hours), which has the ancillary benefit of eliminating the power of secret holds. Likewise the debate on motions to go to conference are limited to 4 hours' debate. The proposal is silent, and therefore makes no change, on filibustering conference agreements.
5. End reading of timely filed and printed amendments. Current rules can force a full reading of the entire text of an amendment. This proposal waives that requirement by majority vote if the text has been available online for 24 hours.
6. Eliminate unnecessary delay on nominations. Post-cloture time was originally included in the rules to allow for consideration of further amendments to a bill or resolution. But nominations can't be amended, so post-cloture time is mostly a waste. This proposal would have the Senate move to an immediate confirmation vote once cloture is invoked. (Earlier proposals limited the time to two hours.)
7. End unanimous consent requirement for committees to meet. A non-filibuster related change, this one does pretty much what it says. When somebody's peeved, they can object to the normally routine unanimous consent request that's currently necessary to allow committees to meet while the Senate is in session. This typically just ends up wrecking committee hearing plans, but it's annoying and unproductive enough to warrant the change. Udall cites the particularly egregious examples of calling military commanders in from the field to testify on important matters, only to see their hearings canceled at the last minute because of this objection.
Overall, a pretty strong proposal. And as I've mentioned in previous posts, the situation is still fluid enough that we can't have any real idea what the final package of proposed reforms will look like. There's good reason to give Mark Udall's proposals (not to mention Al Franken's, cited above) strong consideration for inclusion in the mix.