Colleagues

Several of you have asked me follow up questions about Democrat leadership structure and why I think it is so
important that we consider proposals to strengthen not weaken the republican conference leader position
when we fully engage in this discussion this fall.
I advised several clients on organization design and execution in my management consulting career. Part of
our process would include identifying practices of our client’s competitors and assessing their benefits and risk.
I have reviewed the democrats’ conference rules and, should the Republican conference ever consider
changes, they are worth bearing in mind. I am not advocating for any particular rule change at this time. I am
presenting what I believe are fundamental reasons our conference behaves differently than theirs and
providing food for thought on how we could address some of the frustrations of our members.
When I felt it important for the country or my state, from time to time last Congress I worked for the bipartisan
bills that passed the Senate including the Bipartisan Safe Communities Act, which I raised at lunch last week.
At the time that bill passed, some of you felt frustrated and argued that the Democrats would never do that,
that they stay unified. The purpose of my letter today is not to argue about the policy choices themselves, as
we each need to represent our own state to the best of our ability, but to point out something we should all
reflect on. If the goal is to enhance more of that kind of discipline among us, then weakening the leader would
be counter- productive. So, as we are considering these things, let’s bear the goal and the consequence of
changes in mind.
Term Limits
The democrat’s conference leadership has no treatment for term limits. No congressional conference has a
term limit for their Leader. The Senate Republican Conference has voted on the issue twice, once in 1995
when other the term limits were adopted and once in 2008 which was prospective and exempted Mitch. The
Conference did not adopt term limits for their leader either time. In fact, the vote in 2008 was 36 - 5 against
term limits.
Mitch has been elected 9 times and 8 of those were unopposed. Nothing has prevented any member from
mounting a challenge in the past. Having terms limits on the leader could make the political side of the job
more difficult. I’m in the no-need-for-term-limits camp because we get to pick a leader every two years, and
I’m not convinced incumbency by itself provides much of an advantage in a leadership election.
If we move forward with term limits for our Leader, then I think we need to rethink all of our term limits for both
the elected leadership positions and the committee chairs. Some will say that committee chairs already have
term limits, but I do not agree. Once you become a chair, it’s simply a matter of which committee you are
going to chair not whether you will be a chair in the future. Chuck Grassley has been a Chair/Ranking Member
of a committee for 6 years longer than Mitch has been Leader. I love Chuck and I, for one, hope he continues
as chair, but if we want to talk about term limits then they should be real across the board.
Committee Appointments
The republican senate leader has the authority to pick half plus 1 of any open committee slots. The democrat
senate leader has the authority to fill all open committee slots Expanding the leader’s authority to be in
alignment the democrat leader could empower the leader to position members on committees most likely to
carry the agenda of the majority of the conference forward.
Conference Meetings and Lunches
The democrat senate leader is chair of their conference and presides over all conference meetings and
lunches. Everyone except the leader has a time limit of 3 minutes or less to speak. We could consider having
a similar model or, at a minimum, adopt the time limits and reorient the lunches so that the leader sets the
agenda and delegates to whip, conference leader, et al to preside.
Campaign Committees (NRSC)
The democrat leader appoints the chair of the DSCC and the selection is ratified by the conference. The
republican leader has no role as the NRSC chair is an independently selected by the conference members.
Having the leader nominate the NRSC chair subject to conference ratification could make it more likely the
NRSC chair will be in alignment with the priorities of the republican leader and reduce the risk of conflicts in
messaging and priorities.
Other possible additions to conference rules (Not included in democrat conference rules)
Based on feedback from members, past and current floor staff, and others knowledgeable in senate procedure,
I’ve compiled a list of other ideas for consideration. These could be adopted by a vote of the conference and
would be non-binding to members but would serve more as public guiding principles.
1. Amendments
a. Don’t object to proceeding to appropriations bills that have been reported out of committee on a
bipartisan basis.
b. Don’t object to another member of the conference getting their amendment pending.
c. Allow each member of the conference to get a least one amendment pending prior to asking for a
second amendment.
d. Don’t object to setting a vote on another member’s amendment if the amendment is
relevant/germane to the pending bill on the floor.
e. The conference should not vote for cloture on a bill if a member of the conference has not had the
opportunity to make pending at least one amendment.

2. Amendments/Holds/Floor Activities
a. The cloakroom will maintain a running list of objections and the list will be available to any member
of the conference at all times (and/or posted on the Trunkline website),
b. The leader, in consultation with the chair/RM will have the authority to determine the order and
grouping of amendment votes.
c. Guidelines for members who want to be consulted on every UC request related to a bill on the floor:
i. Member must notify the leader/chair/RM in person on the floor.
ii. Member must remain in the vicinity of the floor whenever the senate is in session.
iii. The chair/RM and elected leadership are NOT responsible for objecting to a consent request
on behalf of a member if that member has been formally notified that they must remain on the
floor to assert their objection.

3. Leader COMPELLED to close a vote

a. Implement a conference rule to compel the leader to close a vote after time has expired if:
i. Only one member has not voted.
ii. The member (or designate from the member office) has not contacted the cloakroom to
formally request that the vote be held open for a specific vote.
iii. The member’s vote would not change the outcome of the vote.

Path Forward

This is by no means an exhaustive list. I share it as a starting point for a discussion of the pros and cons of
any changes as we make our first transition in conference leadership in 18 years. Looking forward, I believe a
thorough discussion of these, and other ideas would be a good use of our time.

Respectfully, Thom T.