There is a lot of equality in the senate. Most of what we do is on unanimous consent. Anyone of the hundred of us could object and throw the place into a stupor. Every senator has some real clout. The majority leader has more clout in the ability to set the agenda and be recognized first, which gives you tactical advantages. But the house always says we are like a pyramid. At the top you have the speaker. The senate is more like a level playing field, with the majority leader has a little more advantage than anyone else. A strongwilled senator can frequently get his way, simply by objecting. You study the senate. He somewhat downplays the the leaders role. You said Party Leaders are more powerful today than a have been at any time in the Senate History . We take leadership for granted. We think leaders are the most powerful and essential leaders in the United States senate. If we did not have them, the senate could not function. Two beyond this that is probably , correct given how the rankandfile senators approach their job. What majority leader mcconnell left out from his statement was, there is a lot of stuff that goes into structuring the process to when you do ask unanimous consent. When a senator objects, they can object, but the majority leader can make it really difficult for that senator to actually object. You wrote in a piece i referenced, that rankandfile members, despite their frustration with the status quo, cannot imagine the Senate Working without their leaders. I want to spend a few minutes and understand that. Last week, 70 former United States senators signed an oped piece that said the senate is dysfunctional. It really points fingers at the leaders. You responded with this agreement with disagreement. I think the leaders have part of the responsibility and help create the environment. The senate is broken because the senators broke it. That letter was interesting because the senators who signed it, the former senators had served inside the senate as senators over the last two decades. The period of time over which the senate begin to unravel, or the dysfunction increased. They did not act in ways at that time to reverse that trajectory. Now they are writing a letter. If you read between the lines it is passive that there is a Mysterious Force that is presenting and preventing the committees from working. I thought the letter was aimed at the leaders. They said they want to make clear this is not a critique of Chuck Schumer or Mitch Mcconnells leadership. We are not critiquing what they are doing. It is not the committees or the rankandfiles or the leaders. Who does that leave . Who has broken the senate . In what ways is it broken . We think its job is to produce legislation. The senate is supposed to have legislation. But how it passes legislation is how it matters. There is a deliberative side of things. The senate is a place where americans see their claims adjudicated. Whether on the majority or minority side. I think the senate is broken because it no longer serves that role. It is no longer deliberating. And ironically if you look at , it, once we began to see the senate as a factory, it becomes less productive. Now we think the job is to produce legislative widgets, and it does not even make those anymore. We will look back over the past 6070 years and help people understand the path that it took to get to where it is today. Would you tell me more about yourself and how you are interested in the senate . I worked in the senate for over a decade. I wept like a baby on my last day in the senate. I probably shouldnt say that on television, but it is a fabulous institution. Even on its worse day it is still a fabulous institution. While i work there i got my phd in political science. I have written books on the senate. Now i am a senior fellow that spends my time thinking about the senate and how it works and how it does not work. I teach classes at American University on congress, on parties, Interest Groups and politics, and how our system is supposed to work and how it works today. This is a think tank of Public Policy institution. The focus is on ways to cut through everything and how we identify solutions for problems we have today. It is not dogmatic. What are the Real Solutions we can identify to fix the government and politics . A big part is the governance project. It looks at how to fix congress. It is a big focus. How can we make Congress Great again after 2016 . We will use a couple of senate specific terms. I would like to have you explain what they are. You heard about unanimous consent. Thats when the senate decides not to follow its rules. The senate never follows its rules. You have rules and you break the rules and any senator can make a point of order. To not follow the rules you say i would like unanimous consent that we not follow this rule. That point of order no longer lies against what the senate wants to do. Its a shortcut. The leaders play a very Important Role in that process. Susan explain the filibuster . The filibuster from mr. Smith goes to washington, we picture that iconic scene where you have an exhausted senator who has not shaved in a while and has all these letters in front of him. Thats not what we see today. The filibuster today is basically voting against cloture, which is a rule to an debate over a senators objection. Unlike in the house when a Senate Majority can do that whenever. The presiding officer cannot call a vote on something as long as the senator speaking or seeking recognition to speak. We call it filibuster when you oppose this. Its when you try to stop a bill. Susan whats the magic . Number to end a filibuster its 3 5 whats the magic number to end the filibuster . Its 3 5. Its typically going to be 60. But if you can change the senate rules it will be two thirds of senators present voting. Its basically however many people are on the floor at that moment. It could be up to 67. Susan the former senators said they point to the overuse of the filibuster is one of the things spoken about the senate. I want to show you a clip from january of 1995. Robert byrd of west virginia, a democrat talks about the rules and the use of the filibuster. Lets watch. [video clip] howard baker and i both together, propounded points of order. We both have filibuster. I dispose of more than 30 amendments within the course of a few minutes. And the filibuster is broken. Back, neck, arms, legs, it went away in two hours. I understand that it has been abused. I understand that senators dont very often stand up and debate anymore. But lets not try to blame it on the rules. Blame it on the senators. [end of video clip] susan what is your reaction . He is correct. Bird would do things to make a motion to suspend the rules for purposes of tabling all of these amendments at once. You can typically only do that with one amendment. He would use the rules to dispose of obstruction. What he is referencing is that it takes effort. It takes a desire to win. It takes someone on the floor whos willing to use every tool that they have at their disposal to overcome obstruction. Relating to how i described the filibuster you find out a , senator will object to a unanimous consent request and you say we cannot do anything. In the me point to cloture motions and cloture votes as if its a reliable accounts of filibuster. Its a vote to win a debate. The rule that came about in the 20th century was designed to empower the majority. It allows the majority to set the schedule and to call votes. It allows the majority to do a whole host of things. Fromnot entirely clear cloture motions that thats whats happening. Its easier now than it was then. And when its easy you are have more of it. Susan that was a debate in 1995 to change the rules on senators to end the debate, which failed. Subsequent majority leaders continue to be frustrated with the filibuster. Harry reid, when he led the senate, first a vote on the Nuclear Option and Mitch Mcconnell extended it. Can you explain what they were trying to do by curtailing the use of the filibuster . Article one section five gives the senate the power to determine the rules. Because they can set whatever rules they want, they can basically negate or circumvent, or ignore, or overcome, or set aside the rules whenever it wants. That is what we call the Nuclear Option. When you have a minority that says we will use the rules that we have to block you, we will use our constitutional power to break the rules or circumvent them or change them to overcome your filibuster. It was first attempted in recent decades by republicans in 2004 at2005 20042005 and it did not work. It was used by democrats. And it has since been used by republicans in 2019. Its really used to overcome the obstruction to make something happen. Susan senator byrd said, if you know the rules you can control the outcome. Are there any real rules in todays senate . We think about the rules different. We make decisions, by we i am referring to the senate. The senate makes decisions behind closed doors in private negotiations. When all of the process is playing out in that environment, the rules do not mean as much because they dont govern those deliberations as they do deliberations in a public and formal setting. You begin to look at them differently. When you think of the senate as a factory that makes widgets, you begin to conceive of your job as a senator as a simply according to a blueprint designed elsewhere. The rules become means to an end and that it the ability to really serve as a powerful weapon because the majority can get rid of them whenever they want. There are no longer islands of predictability and is no longer for senators. The majority can wipe them away when they want. Susan we will spend some time looking at the recent past powerful majority leaders. We should note that the senate did not become constituted with leaders. When did the position, around position, around . Position come around . They began they began electing their caucus chairman in 1903, and those positions became the floor leader position in the 1920s. Oscar underwood is considered to be the first democratic floor leader. Charles curtis from kansas is considered to be the first republican floor leader. Susan you wrote that Party Leaders derive their power from the senates precedents, not from standing rules. One of those is the right of first recognition. Former majority leader robert byrd called it the most potent weapon in the majority leaders arsenal. Leader a clip from mcconnell talking about his role in how he can set the legislative agenda. Lets watch. [video clip] so, you dont think its a good idea . You dont think its something the president would entertain or should entertain . Sen. Mcconnell this is a piece of legislation that is not necessary. It should be in there. Sen. Mcconnell im the one who decides what we take to the floor. Thats my responsibility as the majority leader. [end of video clip] i love this quote, im the one who decides what we take to the floor as majority leader. Thats not true. Any senator can make a motion to approve anything on the senate calendar. Any senator can put a bill on the calendar without having gone through committee first. Any senator can use the rules at his or her disposal to make a motion to proceed to force his or her colleagues to consider something that he or she wants to consider. This came up a lot in recent years. What is fascinating is, the last time, and the majority leader is correct, senators deferred to leaders to make this decision and motions and they have been for decades. But the last time a senator who was not the majority leader made a motion to proceed over the objections of the majority leader and filed closure on it to force a vote, it was Mitch Mcconnell. It is interesting because he was the minority leader at the time. He demonstrated his ability to use the rules to force action on an issue. Susan if the senate operates on precedent, when did first recognition, about . Right of recognition comes from 1937. You have john garner, my favorite Vice President nickname , cactus jack, is in the chair and decides he will grant preferential recognition to the majority leader first and the minority leader second. The favor that they are doing or giving to the majority leader. And incidentally the minority leader. Its not something the senate can require the chair to do. They cannot force the chair to do. The chair can recognize any senator, it does not matter, but it is more of a tradition that they defer to the majority leader. Susan why did his that deference give the majority leader so much power . Once you make a motion to proceed you can set the schedule. If you are creative and can come up with innovative ways, you can control the agenda. You can control it by making motions or block other senators from doing the same things. Once you offer an amendment, you lose the floor. The majority leader gets the floor right back. Same as the minority leader, so long as the majority leader does not want to do so as well. That is a huge power for them that allows them to act ahead of other senators. Susan we are talking about captain jack texan, he was about he was another texan and another one was lbj. He was dubbed master of the senate. He served when as the majority leader . He was a majority leader during the late 50s . He was minority leader prior to that and was assistant leader prior to that, but all during the 1950s. He was master of the senate and did so much to shape the position, the institution we see and know today. He was a master of a senate that was bounded in time. Johnson could not have done, at least i dont believe he could have, the things he did had he existed in a different era. That is key to understanding the dysfunction we have today, and understanding why the current approach to managing the institution on both sides of the aisle has been unsuccessful. Susan lets listen to him talk about power in the senate. [video clip] a lot of rules have been put in to make sure most senators no senator can leave the senate. One of the predecessors said no one can lead it. He said, i have nothing to promise them, i have nothing to threaten them with. So how was Lyndon Johnson able to run the senate . Probably the most significant sentence in the book that answer this question is a quote from Lyndon Johnson, talking about himself. This is Lyndon Johnson talking about his self. I do understand power, whatever else may be said about me. I know where to look for it and i know how to use it. Lyndon johnson was right in that selfassessment. He looks for power in places that no one else had thought to look for it. I have nothing to promise, i have nothing to threaten with. Johnson found things to promise. He found things to threaten them with. [end of video clip] susan when he took over as majority leader he had a onevote majority. How did he find things to lead the senate . Its a fabulous quote and fabulous book. Not just about johnson, but also about the senate, its history and the moment in time in the 1950s. Johnson was so astute. This predates his time in the senate. When he becomes the assistant leader, he looks for Different Things he can do. I give you information about this committee meeting. He starts to amass this and becomes the chief information officer. He uses his financial ties in texas to raise money. To dole out to people who support him. He slowly inserts himself into the center if you can imagine, the center of a tire. Everything radiates through johnson. It was subtle and nuanced, but it was ultimately the key to creating what we know today and recognize today as Senate Leaders. Susan when the 1958 elections happened, he increased this is a his majority to 55, but it said he had a more difficult time leading a larger majority. Why would that be . This is a key moment where we can get a better insight into how Senate Leaders work. Its partly personality, but also the environment. The senators who come in and new classes. The issues on the agenda and the presidency. In 1958 you have 12 liberal Democratic Senators from the north come in and they want to act on a whole host of issues. They dont want to wait forever to become a committee chairman. Southerners have been there and will not go anywhere anytime soon. They are secure. They start agitating. They say the system does not work for us. They start pushing to go to the floor. The power bases on which johnson relied to master the senate began to erode. They get weaker. You get a more collegial, open and free wielding Senate Environment that i believe johnson could not manage. If you was not in the white house as Vice President and president in the 1960s and had stayed in the senate, we would remember him differently today. Susan his signature issue was to write legislation. Why was he not more successful . People do not remember the Civil Rights Act of 1957. Everybody remembers the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A big part is because of what they did. The 1957 act was not as important as the 1964 act. It relates to how johnson tried to get it through the senate. He wanted to control the institution and write bills off the floor. He wanted scripted speeches to fill floor time he wanted to have dispute before it hit the floor. There is no process to really work through all of these issues. Today, or in 1964, his successor from montana has a completely different approach. That approach aligns with the environment and gives him a better bill in the end. Thats why we look at mansfield and see him as one of the greater leaders. Even though we think as johnson as master of the senate. Susan when you read the book, you see it character named bobby baker who is secretary of the senate. Does the secretary of the Senate Position still exist . How did johnson use it versus how it might be used in later times . Bobby baker was a kid from pickens, South Carolina and comes into the senate as a page.