Senate Reforms from Four Freshmen

LAST week's near blockage of the legislative arteries of Congress was only the latest indication that one of the Government's most vital organs is in need of drastic surgery. That is particularly true of the Senate, whose members have repeatedly refused to allow reformers to interfere with the filibuster, the seniority system (TIME Essay, Dec. 14) and time-consuming procedures almost as aged as the toga. Nevertheless, four freshmen Senators have coaxed the Senate into consenting to some changes that, starting next month, could help the incoming Congress to function more effectively.

The bipartisan group of reformers is made up of Republicans William Saxbe of Ohio and Richard Schweiker of Pennsylvania and Democrats Alan Cranston of California and Harold Hughes of Iowa. Because this was their first term, they were not accustomed to the quaint ways in which the Senate fails to conduct its business, and they felt frustrated. Saxbe, who knows how to exert power as a result of his experience as a speaker of the Ohio house of representatives, complained last summer that "anyone who thinks being a Senator is fun just hasn't had much." Cranston, equally irked at the sluggish pace, suggested to him: "Quit complaining; let's see what we can do about this."

Cranston and Saxbe decided to work quietly and concentrate on step-by-step changes the would stir scant controversy. They enlisted the help of Hughes, a former Governor who felt helpless as a Senator ("You have no command. You have to do what other people decide at their times"), and Schweiker, who had served eight years in the House and was struck by how much more slowly the Senate moved.

All four were appalled by the Senate's taking almost two months last summer to pass the Defense Procurement bill, the tendency to work a three-day week, and by the fact that Senators sometimes take the floor for windy speeches designed only for home consumption while national business has to wait. Plotting during dinners, the four honed their proposals. They then consulted their senatorial elders, mainly the two party leaders, Democrat Mike Mansfield and Republican Hugh Scott. "We didn't want them to think that this was a revolt by upstart freshmen," explained Schweiker. Mansfield and Scott encouraged them to go ahead.

"Through the fall, Saxbe talked to every Republican Senator and discovered that "even the oldtimers didn't like what was going on; they said 'Go it.' " Only Nebraska's Roman Hruska voiced objections, but he said he would not be the only one to stand in their way. Cranston, a former lobbyist on Capitol Hill, talked to every Democrat and secured the backing of the Senate's most respected parliamentarian, Georgia's Richard Russell. When the new Congress convenes, the Senate will give the procedural reforms a thorough trial. Among them:

> To minimize the number of votes that are delayed because Senators make uncoordinated commitments for appearances outside Washington during the work week, all Senators will be given a long weekend (Wednesday through Sunday) at the end of each month. That will permit them to schedule travel, in exchange for attending to Washington business for a full five days the other three weeks of each month.

> To enable the Senate to deal with at least one bill a day, the miscellaneous speeches that now open a session in what the Senators call "the morning hour" will be limited to three minutes each. The total time for all of them would be half an hour on two days, 45 minutes on three days. This would clear more "prime time" for debate and action on pending legislation.

> To increase efficiency, the present "dual-track" system initiated by Mansfield and Scott, in which a filibuster is allowed to run through the day, but night sessions are held to conduct less controversial business, would be reversed. Business would be enacted during the day, when Senators are relatively refreshed, and the stalling speeches, or speeches made only for the record, would take place at day's end or at night--presumably to an empty chamber.

>To save time, a drive will be made to cut down the number of roll calls. Hughes discovered that, at 20 minutes each, roll calls had consumed 28 full eight-hour days this past year. A greater number of uncontroversial items will be passed by the collective voicing of "ayes" and "nays." The presiding officer may also be allowed to determine if a quorum is present by counting the Senators rather than by calling the roll.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.