Financial Regulatory Reform Faces Parliamentary Roadblocks – Is it Time to Change the Rules of the Game?

It was downright painful watching the U.S. Senate, supposedly the more deliberative body of Congress, give into partisan bickering and resort to all manner of political machinations and parliamentary maneuvers during the more than 15 months of acrimony that was the health care debate.

The resulting bad taste left in the mouths of many Americans by the ugly health care fight wasn't lost on a handful of Senators, mainly recently elected Democrats who are urging their Senate colleagues to end the institutional strife and fix what they see as a "broken" system. Their goal is to break with tradition and revamp many old and antiquated rules that govern the way the Senate operates.

According to a recent Washington Post article, the small band of Senators has "targeted long-held senatorial courtesies such as the 'hold' and the seniority system that awards chairmen's gavels solely on tenure. Ultimately, some want to modify or eliminate the most potent of all senatorial weapons: the filibuster."

Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico) speaking for the group said that "the more the American people understand the system's broken, the more the people are going to support rules reform."

He couldn't be more right. What's more, changing the way the Senate does business can't come soon enough.

Having successfully shepherded the health care overhaul through Congress, the Obama administration now has its sights set on financial regulatory reform. The Senate is expected to vote within weeks on an expansive set of rules and regulatory measures aimed at "holding Wall Street accountable."

However, all 41 Republicans in the 100-seat Senate have promised to oppose the banking reform bill measure.

Senate Republican leader Sen. Mitch McConnell (Kentucky) claims the President is trying to "politicize" financial reform. Echoing the same GOP refrain from the earlier health care debate, McConnell wants senators to go back to the drawing board and rework the banking bill.

The Senate bill, approved by Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee, is scheduled for debate but Republicans have vowed to do everything they can, including filibuster, to keep the measure from reaching the Senate floor.

The frustration of dealing with the constant parliamentary roadblocks that slow the Senate's business--everything from confirming nominees to key agencies, naming judges to federal benches, and of course passing major legislation-- is what has some Senators searching for solutions.

But it won't be easy.

Long-serving Senators have no desire to change rules that favor them. Sen. Robert Byrd (D-West Virginia), who at 92 is the longest-serving lawmaker in the history of Congress, points out the rules protect every senator.

Still, Senate rules have been successfully changed. Take for example the "hold"--which originated in the 19th century and allows a Senator to prevent a motion from reaching a vote on the Senate floor by simply notifying his or her party leadership of their intent to object to a measure. It was abolished in 1997, but only temporarily. Senators soon employed alternative delaying tactics that were even more problematic and the hold was soon reinstated.

Undaunted by history, Sen. Udall (D-New Mexico) earlier this year introduced legislation to amend the filibuster, saying that at times the Senate "seems more dysfunctional than deliberative." He went on to say partisan rancor and the "Senate's own incapacitating rules often prevent us from conducting our business."

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has said he will look into reforming the filibuster after the mid-term elections.

Despite being an uphill battle the fight to revamp the Senate's rules is a good and necessary one.