GOP shoots down Democratic plan to change Senate rules 
 
 By Josiah Ryan - 
 
 Republican Senate Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) objected to a unanimous-consent request from Democrats on Tuesday on a resolution that would have weakened filibuster rules and stalling tactics usually deployed by the minority on the floor of the Senate. 
 
 The resolution, supported in a spirited colloquy among Democratic Sens. Tom Udall (N.M.), Jeff Merkley (Ore.) and Tom Harkin (Iowa) for most of Tuesday afternoon, would have eliminated some forms of the filibuster, ended secret holds, guaranteed consideration of amendments for both the majority and minority, required talking filibusters and expedited the nominations approval process. 
 
 The colloquy was heavily punctuated with references to the Jimmy Stewart film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” and references to the wishes of the late Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the widely acknowledged master of Senate procedure. 
 
 “The U.S. Senate has become the place where good House bills go to die," complained Udall. “The Senate was once called the greatest deliberative body in the world. Today there is very little deliberation at all." 
 
 Harkin said that the rules preventing Democrats from changing the rules were themselves unconstitutional. 
 
 “Here in the Senate because of a change in rules that happened many years ago it has bound every senator thereafter,” said Harkin referring to a rule that requires a supermajority to change the rules. “I think that’s unconstitutional.” 
 
 As Harkin and other Democrats pointed out, the Constitution requires a supermajority for presidential impeachment, to oust a member of Congress and for approval for international treaties, but allows each House to “determine the rules of its proceedings.” 
 
 Republicans, for the most part, did not participate in the debate until the very end, when Alexander objected to the unanimous-consent request. Members of leadership in the chamber, including Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), have said that Democrats' attempt to change the rule is “a power grab.” 
 
 
 
 ||||| A leader in the fight to curtail the filibuster, Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa), questioned Tuesday whether a modest plan to ease gridlock in the Senate gets “to the heart of the matter.” 
 
 “Well, anything is probably better than what we have now, but the question is, do you take a couple little baby steps that don’t really get to the heart of the matter?” Harkin told POLITICO. “That’s what I consider most these to be, small baby steps. They don’t get to the heart of the matter.” 
 
 Text Size - 
 
 + 
 
 reset POLITICO 44 
 
 Harkin was referring to a bipartisan plan developed by Sens. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.) that would institute some reforms but leave the filibuster intact. 
 
 The proposed changes would limit the number of executive branch nominations subject to Senate confirmation; make it more difficult for senators to anonymously block legislation or nominees; and end a stall tactic that lets senators force clerks to read aloud the complete text of a bill if the measure has been made public. 
 
 The Senate leaders, Democrat Harry Reid and Republican Mitch McConnell, are expected to reach a gentlemen’s agreement that will let the GOP offer more amendments but limit filibustering on motions to begin debate. 
 
 But the efforts fall short of the push by progressives such Harkin and junior senators such as Democratic Sens. Tom Udall of New Mexico and Jeff Merkley of Oregon, who want to overhaul the filibuster and limit its use by changing the rules. 
 
 Udall and Merkley want to employ an arcane procedure they call the “constitutional option” to force the Senate to change its rules by a simple majority of 51 votes, rather than a supermajority of 67. 
 
 Even if the reformers got a vote to the floor, they appear to lack the votes for passage. Democratic leaders still worry that such an effort could create a damaging precedent if they lose the majority after 2012. 
 
 It remains to be seen whether Udall, Merkley and Harkin push for the floor votes. That decision will likely be made after they take the temperature of their caucus during a Tuesday lunch meeting.
– A bid to overhaul the Senate's filibuster rules appears to have fallen short of the mark. Instead, lawmakers are expected to approve a set of modest changes in coming days as a compromise, reports the Washington Post. Some Democratic lawmakers wanted to require senators to actually stand and talk the entire time—as in Jimmy Stewart's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, a reference they cited several times in arguments, notes the Hill. (Or in a more modern example, Bernie Sanders' recent rant.) Instead of a "talking filibuster," the new rules will likely put an end to stalling tactics such as forcing clerks to read the complete text of the bill. They'll also make it harder to block legislation or the approval of nominees anonymously. “Well, anything is probably better than what we have now, but the question is, do you take a couple little baby steps that don’t really get to the heart of the matter?” Sen. Tom Harkin asks Politico. "That’s what I consider most these to be, small baby steps."