两位来自不同党派的参议员希望在新一届国会就职前采取一项大胆举措：改革饱受诟病的参议院议事规则。
A bipartisan pair of senators wants to do something bold before a new Congress takes over: Fix the Senate’s frequently maligned rules.
俄勒冈州民主党籍参议员杰夫·默克利与蒙大拿州共和党籍参议员史蒂夫·戴恩斯并不打算废除阻挠议事规则。不过据Semafor获得的方案细节显示，他们提出的改革措施能促使更多跨党派提案获得表决机会、消除那些浪费时间的程序，从而让广受支持的法案得以在参议院通过。
No, Sens. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., and Steve Daines, R-Mont., don’t want to end the filibuster. But they have a proposal that would allow more bipartisan bills to get votes, end time-wasting procedures, and actually allow popular bills to come to the Senate floor and pass, according to details reviewed by Semafor.
“让更多法案获得通过、举行更多表决、减少时间浪费——这就是改革的核心目的，”戴恩斯在与默克利共同接受Semafor采访时说道。
“More bills passed, more votes taken, less time wasted. That sums up,” Daines told Semafor in a joint interview with Merkley.
对这两位背景迥异的参议员而言，这项改革任务艰巨，但获得的支持力度却超出预期。默克利是参议院公认的议事规则专家，甚至专门撰写过论述参议院僵局问题的著作。即将卸任的戴恩斯则与推动改革所需的两位关键人物——总统唐纳德·特朗普及参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩关系密切。戴恩斯在着手研究参议院改革方案时，发现所有线索最终都指向了默克利：后者曾起草民主党提出的最后一份规则改革提案，还牵头推动了取消提名确认需60票门槛的举措。
It’s a big undertaking for the odd couple, but the effort has more momentum behind it than one would expect. Merkley is the Senate’s resident rules expert and has literally written the book on Senate gridlock. Daines, who is retiring, is close to two of the people they’ll need on board to pass the proposal: President Donald Trump and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. When Daines started exploring how to fix the Senate, all roads led to Merkley, who wrote Democrats’ last rules change proposal and spearheaded the push to end the 60-vote threshold for nominees.
两位参议员向Semafor透露，他们经常听到同僚们抱怨参议院的工作效率低下。一名参议员就能迫使一项广受支持的法案经历长达一周的辩论；政府运作也常常依赖效力存疑的临时拨款决议；就连争取对某项修正案进行表决，也往往需要获得全部100名参议员的同意。此外，诸如“间隔日”规则、“休会后再审议”程序这类过时的时间规定也浪费了大量时间——而这些内容在参议员竞选期间几乎不会被作为重点向候选人介绍。
The senators told Semafor they hear plenty of complaints from their colleagues about the Senate’s sluggish progress as an institution. One senator can force a week of debate on a popular bill, the government often runs on zombie continuing resolutions, and securing an amendment vote often requires consent from all 100 senators. What’s more, plenty of time is wasted for antiquated time rules like the “intervening day” on legislation or “post-cloture time” — things Senate hopefuls aren’t exactly briefed on when they launch their campaigns.
“我们曾在运转良好的机构中从事富有成效的工作，可如今的参议院究竟怎么了？”默克利这样说道，总结了他从同事们那里听到的种种抱怨。“美国民众也在表达同样的疑问。”
“‘We had productive professional lives in functional institutions, and what the hell happened to the Senate?’”Merkley said, summing up complaints he’s heard from colleagues. “The American people are saying the same thing.”
“现在可以看到一种现象：许多人开始考虑回到家乡去竞选州长。为什么呢？因为各州政府并未像美国参议院和众议院那样陷入瘫痪状态，”这位来自俄勒冈州的民主党议员补充道。戴恩斯也表示认同：“目前美国参议院正面临士气低落的问题。”这两位参议员提出了四项主要诉求：他们希望废除那些用于启动对候选人、法案及修正案辩论的程序性投票（即所谓的“结束辩论投票”），同时保留少数派议员通过“冗长辩论”手段阻止对争议性法案展开辩论的权利。
“One thing you see here is people thinking about going home and being a governor. Why? Because states are not paralyzed the way the US Senate and House are,” the Oregon Democrat added. Daines agreed: “We have morale challenges now in the United States Senate.”The two senators have four major asks: They want to get rid of procedural (known as cloture) votes to begin debate on nominees, bills, and amendments while retaining the ability for the lawmakers in the minority to oppose efforts to close debate on controversial bills via the filibuster.
按照他们的提议，原本在结束辩论投票前必须等待的一天时间将被取消，辩论时长也会相应缩短，从而消除参议院议事过程中的无效时间。
Under their proposal, the intervening day before a vote to break a filibuster would be eliminated and debate time condensed, removing dead time from the Senate floor.
他们还希望效仿众议院的做法，设立一个快速审议日程表，使得参议院在获得三分之二多数票支持的情况下能更迅速地审议各项法案。这些法案的辩论时间也将受到限制，且需要两党委员会领袖协同合作才能被纳入快速审议流程。
They also want to establish a fast-track suspension calendar, not unlike the House, that would allow the Senate to more quickly take up bills at a supermajority requirement of two-thirds of the Senate. Debate time for those bills would be limited and require coordination from committee leaders in both parties to get on the fast-track.
戴恩斯与默克利还提议，对于获得两党委员会广泛支持且广受民众欢迎的法案，应给予委员会领袖一天的快速审议时间，以便这些法案仅凭简单多数票即可在参议院获得通过。最后，他们的方案还规定，拨款委员会领袖可借助便捷渠道将那些广受欢迎且附带大量支出修正案机会的预算法案提交至参议院审议。
Daines and Merkley also want committee leaders to have a one-day fast-track for considering popular bills with strong committee support from both parties that would allow those bills to pass the Senate with a simple majority. Finally, their proposal would give Appropriations Committee leaders a quick route to the Senate floor for popular spending bills with plentiful spending amendment opportunities.
这一方案虽是一种权衡之举，但仍能确保参议院少数派有权阻止那些仅获本党支持或缺乏广泛民意基础的法案；同时它也要求各委员会主席及资深议员付出切实努力，才能将自己的提案顺利送上参议院议事桌。
It’s a tradeoff that would still allow the Senate minority to stop party-line bills or those without broad support and require real work by committee chairs and ranking members to get their products on the Senate floor.
但它将确保像众议院一样，一项获得三分之二支持的法案能够迅速来到议院审议。它将最大限度地减少单一参议员阻挠广泛支持的法案的能力，比如上周共和党来自肯塔基州的参议员兰德·保罗阻挠了广受欢迎的《儿童在线安全法案》。
But it would ensure that, like the House, a bill with two-thirds support can come to the floor quickly. It would minimize the ability of a single senator to block bills with huge support, like last week when Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., blocked the popular Kids Online Safety Act.
“我们的目标是不要把这变成一场政治斗争。我认为我们在这里提出的方案是坚久可靠的，无论哪个党派掌权都没有问题。我们认识到其益处，无论是民主党还是共和党掌握议权，”戴恩斯说。“在过去的四届国会中，有665项两党合作的法案通过了委员会，但最终流产。”这对他们已经在与各自的党魁就现代化参议院规则进行商谈，并且他们对达到修改规则所需的67票门槛抱有乐观态度。戴恩斯一直让桑恩了解相关情况。
“The goal here is to not make this a political fight. I think what we have proposed here is durable, regardless of which party is in power. We realize the benefits, no matter if Ds or Rs have a gavel,” Daines said. “Across the last four Congresses, there have been 665 bipartisan bills passing through committees that go to the elephant graveyard.”The pair is already talking to their respective party leaders about modernizing the Senate rules and they’re optimistic about getting it passed at the required 67-vote threshold for a rules change. Daines is keeping Thune apprised.
桑恩的发言人瑞安·瓦塞说：“桑恩始终欢迎讨论如何使参议院更加有效率地运作，并且他赞扬戴恩斯参议员的创新思路。由于任何规则变更都无法单方面实施，因此建立跨党派共识将是对现有流程进行任何修改的关键。”
Thune spokesman Ryan Wrasse said “Thune is always open to discussing ways to make the Senate function in a more effective and efficient way, and he applauds Sen. Daines for thinking outside the box. Since no rules change can be implemented unilaterally, building a bipartisan consensus will be key to any modification of the existing process.”
默克利表示，他与参议院少数党领袖查克·舒默以及民主党领导人进行了交谈，“舒默并没有说‘停止讨论’。”默克利说：“舒默和桑恩都认识到存在一些令人不满和低效的情况，这值得进行一次对话。”
Merkley said he talked to Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and the Democratic leader “didn’t say, ‘stop the discussion.’”Schumer and Thune “recognize that there is frustration and dysfunction that merits a conversation,” Merkley said.
当然，特朗普希望彻底废除阻挠议案的规则。但戴恩斯表示，总统团队也参与了他们的谈判。
Trump, of course, wants to just kill the filibuster entirely. But Daines said the president’s team is engaged in their talks too.
“我们也与白宫的关键人物进行了沟通，并获得了他们的认可，”戴恩斯说。
“We also ran the traps with key players in the White House. And got a thumbs up on it,” Daines said.
在理想情况下，他们表示还会推动参议院更多地采用“讨论式阻挠议事”机制，并限制按党派立场通过的预算协调法案的使用，以减少赤字开支。不过目前他们先从那些被认为广受民众支持的提案入手，以期促使参议院花时间讨论相关规则——最好是在戴恩斯卸任之前。但这种情况已经许久未曾出现。近期对参议院惯例的修改都是通过多数党单方面行使的“核选项”来实现的。默克利警告称，下次若有政党利用“核选项”修改参议院规则，他们甚至可能彻底废除“三分之二多数票”这一门槛要求。
In an ideal world, they said they’d also move the Senate more toward a talking filibuster and restrict the use of party-line budget reconciliation bills in order to reduce deficit spending. But they are starting with what they believe are broadly popular proposals that could get the chamber to devote a time to debate the rules — preferably before Daines leaves office That hasn’t happened for awhile. Recent changes to Senate precedent have been made using the unilateral “nuclear option” which can be done in a party-line fashion by the majority. The next time a party uses the nuclear option to change Senate rules, they might nuke the supermajority requirement altogether, Merkley warned.
“如果我们不解决这个问题，最终某一党派定会废除阻挠议事机制，”默克利说道，“那样的话，参议院就真的会变成众议院了。”这些参议员说得没错——正如前参议员乔·曼钦所言，在参议院任职确实“挺糟糕的”。如果你不清楚什么是“法定人数点名表决”，只要在参议院开会期间打开直播观看，很快就能明白（其实就是确认是否有足够议员在场这么简单）。也难怪本届有四位现任参议员都竞选州长。
“If we don’t solve this, eventually one team or the other is going to get rid of the filibuster,” Merkley said. “Then the Senate really does become the House.”The senators are right — serving in the Senate kind of “sucks,” as former Sen. Joe Manchin famously put it. If you don’t know what a quorum call is, you will learn pretty quickly if you toss on the Senate livestream when the chamber is in session (it’s basically an empty Senate). It’s no wonder four sitting senators ran for governor this cycle.
默克利与戴恩斯正试图寻找各方都能接受的改革方案，这样一来无论11月谁胜出，这些提议都有可能获得通过。不过尽管双方说得头头是道，我仍有很多理由对此持怀疑态度。
Merkley and Daines are trying to find changes that everyone can live with, so their ideas could conceivably pass no matter who wins in November. But despite the happy talk, I have plenty of reasons to be skeptical.
目前，任何一名参议员都能独自阻止法案快速通过。因此，要想赋予参议院更多权力来通过受民众欢迎的法案，两人就必须找到67名愿意适度让渡自身权力的参议员才行。
Right now any one senator can stop a bill from passing quickly by themselves. So to give the Senate itself more power to pass popular bills, the pair will need to find 67 senators willing to dilute their own individual power — at least just a little bit.
或许在大家都觉得参议院运作失灵的情况下，这种改革还有实现的可能。但关键问题在于：经过一场激烈的中期选举后，各党派领袖是否愿意将默克利与戴恩斯的提议列为优先事项呢？
It might be possible when no one believes the Senate is working as it should. The big question is whether, after a hard-fought midterm election, party leaders want to prioritize Daines and Merkley’s ideas.