In The News

The new Senate will face one of its most momentous decisions in its opening hours on Wednesday: a vote on whether to change its rules to prohibit the widespread abuse of the filibuster. Americans are fed up with Washington gridlock. The Senate should seize the opportunity. A filibuster — the

This year, along with all the carols, gift returning and ceremonial watchings of “It’s a Wonderful Life,” Jeff Merkley has a whole new idea for a seasonal activity. “We need to say to the American people, over the holidays,” he proposes, “please engage in a debate if you think the

Senate Democrats are moving toward some version of filibuster reform. And one of the primary agitators behind that project has been Sen. Jeff Merkley (Ore.). It’s his reform proposal — a modest document that doesn’t end the filibuster so much as bring it closer into alignment with what the public

In the lore of Congress, there is a fabled observation that among congressmen, “There are show horses and there are work horses.”** Show horses are quick to seek a headline. Work horses are senators who work the phones and the cloakroom and know how to count the votes.

Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley is a work horse. His latest project is to amend Senate rules to curtail the filibuster’s proliferation. It sounds like a quixotic venture, but Merkley has gained allies and collaborators in both parties.

The Senate may change its rules at the beginning of a new Congress. That will occur in January. And the key knowledge is that a vote on rule change may not be filibustered.

What we know today as a filibuster used to be known as extended debate. It was originally seen as a courtesy. Unlike the much larger House of Representatives, which controls debate through rules that govern the discussion of each bill, the Senate’s more leisurely discussion “was designed for senators to hear each other out,” notes Merkley. “Now that courtesy has changed into a procedural objection to a vote that is paralyzing the Senate.”

Merkley notes that in 2010 the Senate failed to adopt a budget, and it did not consider hundreds of bills passed by the House. Also, hundreds of executive department nominations were not taken to a vote, and likewise for judicial nominations.

“Basically, we had very little that could be considered deliberation on the floor of the Senate.”

This is unglamorous work. It is essential if the Senate hopes to be more than dysfunctional. Sen. Merkley’s work is absolutely on target.

**Senate Historian Don Ritchie says the first publication of this observation was in The Washington Post  (Jan. 14, 1947). The observation was attributed to Rep. Frederick C. Talbott  (D-Maryland).

WASHINGTON — Lower taxes for millionaires or billions to shore up Social Security? That’s the choice U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., is trying to force with a proposal he offered on Thursday. Merkley proposed the idea in response to President Barack Obama’s package of tax cuts, which would prevent taxes

The problem for those who want to do away with the filibuster and restore some functionality to the Senate is that some argue it requires a two thirds vote to make it happen — a virtual impossibility given today’s Senate math. (Update: See below.) But Senator Jeff Merkley, one of