Brian Beutler | December 30, 2010, 8:30AM
On January 5, 2011 -- the first day of the 112th Congress -- Sen. Tom Udall (D-NM) will touch off a long debate, which he hopes will result in a majority-rules vote on a package of meaningful changes to the Senate rules. After a series of private conversations with Democratic members, he and his allies have settled upon a framework including three distinct reforms designed to unclog the Senate and scale back the minority's power.
The consensus package will aim to
put an end to "secret holds" (anonymous filibuster threats) and disallow the minority from blocking debate on an issue altogether. Those two reforms are fairly straightforward. The third is a bit more complex. Udall, along with Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR), say there's broad agreement on the idea to
force old-school filibusters. If members want to keep debating a bill, they'll have to actually talk. No more lazy filibusters.But how would that actually work? In an interview Wednesday, Udall explained the ins and outs of that particular proposal.
"What we seem to have the most consensus on, is what I would call... a talking filibuster," Udall told me. "Rather than a filibuster which is about obstruction."
As things currently stand, the onus is on the majority to put together 60 votes to break a filibuster. Until that happens, it's a "filibuster," but it's little more than a series of quorum calls, votes on procedural motions, and floor speeches. The people who oppose the underlying issue don't have to do much of anything if they don't want to.
-edit-
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/paging-mr-smith-how-the-senate-could-return-to-the-old-school-filibuster.php