Congress returned yesterday for a jam-packed lame duck session, facing a mountain of bills that congressional Democrats, hobbled by Republican obstructionism, were unable to address during the normal session. Some pieces of this unfinished business are basic necessities that Congress must pass, such as a continuing resolution to fund the government into early next year, while other measures are key progressive agenda items, like the DREAM Act. Both parties have said they want to address extending the Bush-era tax cuts, which are set to expire on December 31, and “[t]he battle over the tax cuts could provide the most fascinating example of high-stakes endgame negotiations in memory .” Meanwhile, federal unemployment benefits are set to expire for some recipients on Dec. 1, but “Senate Republicans might not make it easy to pass another extension” — Sen. Jim Bunning (R-KY), and then the entire GOP caucus, infamously blocked an extension this spring. Democrats are also hoping to complete a defense authorization bill that would repeal the military’s discriminatory Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy, “but the path forward remains unclear,” as Sen. John McCain (R-AZ), a key player in negotiations, has indicated that he will not abide by his commitments on the issue. The White House has identified the New START nuclear arms treaty with Russia as a “top priority” for the lame duck, while Democratic leadership in both chambers wants a measure that would send $250 checks to Social Security recipients, in lieu of a Cost of Living Adjustment. Meanwhile, the House may take up a major child nutrition bill, and yesterday, the Senate moved to pass a much-needed food safety measure. For their part, Senate Republicans are hoping to pass a year-long moratorium on earmarks by attaching it to the first available bill. In order words, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said, “We have a long list of things to get done and not a lot of time to do them. … The question is, how much, if any, are [Republicans] willing to work with us?” In fact, this “long list” of items is a result of Republican obstructionism over the past two years, and judging by their pledges of “no compromise” for the upcoming Congress, it seems unlikely that congressional GOPers are in any mood to cooperate now.

LAME DUCK HISTORY: Lame duck sessions have become commonplace in Washington in recent years, but this was not always the case. The possibility of a lame duck session only began in 1935 with the ratification of the 20th Amendment, which established that new Congress convenes in regular session starting on Jan. 3. Since then, there have been only 18 lame duck sessions, or about one for every two congressional sessions. Many of these have been pro forma, “in which no business is conducted,” but Congress convenes to satisfy a constitutional obligation to meet periodically. Most other lame ducks have convened in order to make necessary, but banal, appropriations. Others have focused on a single issue , such as the censure of former Sen. Joseph McCarthy in 1954 or the buildup to World War II. However, since 1994, after Republicans swept to victory, lame ducks have been held during all but one congressional session. And as congressional scholar Norman Ornstein wrote of the current session, “The looming lame-duck session will be among the most interesting of the 17 since 1940,” with its plethora of legislative goals. Congress allowed President Bush to accomplish a lot during his first lame duck session in 2002 — the Department of Homeland Security was created and the Senate confirmed 20 Bush judges , including controversial ones — but it’s unclear whether the same will be true for Obama’s.

GOP OBSTRUCTION: The enormous backlog of critical legislation left for the lame duck is a result of congressional Republicans, mostly in the Senate, abusing the chamber’s procedural rules — which “are based on tradition, not the Constitution” — to slow down, block, or stop the Democratic majority’s agenda. While the Senate was always intended to be more deliberative than the House, this Congress’s batch of Senate Republicans made a calculation early on that the best move for them politically would be to cripple progressive policy, and hollow out the federal government by refusing to confirm President Obama’s nominees in a timely manner. For example, while it is now taken for granted than any major piece of legislation needs 60 votes to pass the Senate, this has not always been the case. Use of the filibuster — the minority’s tactic to halt action on a bill through endless debate — has skyrocketed in the past two decades, creating a de facto need for 60 votes to get anything done. And as the Center for American Progress’ Ian Millhiser has explained, much Senate business in effect requires all 100 senators to agree to move forward. “Unless the senators unanimously consent to holding a vote immediately, dissenting senators may demand up to 30 hours of post-cloture debate before a vote can actually take place, and they can prevent the Senate from considering any other business during these hours of delay.” Exploiting the 30-hour rule for every vote, the minority can subvert Senate business to point that there simply isn’t enough time on the legislative calender to get much done. As Millhiser points out, at 30 hours of debate, it “adds up to over 1,200 days and nights required to confirm all of a president’s nominees over minority objection — more Senate work days than there are in two entire presidential terms.”

NEEDED REFORM: Recognizing the absurdity of Senate rules, a number of junior Senate Democrats have committed to reshaping the broken way the upper chamber does business, including reforming the filibuster. Sen. Mark Udall (D-CO), his cousin Sen. Tom Udall (D- NM), and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) “are expected to wage a fresh campaign to change Senate operating procedures” when the new Senate convenes in January with a slimmer Democratic majority. A “top goal” for these junior Democrats “is to change Senate rules that allow a single member of the minority party to prevent legislation from advancing” — the filibuster. Both Udalls, along with Sen. Tom Harkin (D-IA), who has his own proposal to reform the filibuster, told The Hill this week they are not backing down from their effort, despite Republican gains in the chamber. Tom Udall told the Hill that “he will force a motion on the first day of the next Congress to have Vice President Joe Biden adopt new rules for the two-year session. Then, Udall said, he will seek consensus among senators from both parties to lower the 60-vote threshold for procedural motions. Only a simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary for such a move, and Udall said he expects support from some Republicans.” Meanwhile, Mark Udall and Ornstein have proposed a milder plan that would “restrict the use of the filibuster by the minority party, while limiting the majority’s control over minority amendments.” For his part, Harkin has said he will push his own plan next year, which calls for a “gradual decrease in the voting threshold for procedural motions — a plan he first proposed in 1995, when Democrats were the minority party.” “At a time when split control of Congress will necessitate compromise, this is an ideal moment to bring about needed rule changes in the Senate that would protect minority rights to debate and deliberation, while ensuring majority rule in the Senate,” Harkin said. They may even get some help from new Republicans. Sen.-elect Dan Coats (R-IN), who has previously served in the Senate, embraced reforming the Senate rules in a recent interview with NPR, saying, “I would support removing” the filibuster.