Two years ago, Sen. Jeff Merkley, D-Ore., published a book about restoring the so-called talking filibuster and repairing what he describes as a “broken” system in the Senate. Now he’s forming an unlikely duo with Sen. Steve Daines, R-Mont., to push a sweeping proposal to overhaul the chamber’s rules.

“America today is larger, busier and more complex than the America our Founding Fathers designed the Senate and its rules to govern,” the pair wrote in a seven-page document they released Thursday. 

Daines, who previously served as the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, is retiring at the end of his term in January, while Merkley is up for reelection this year.

“We’re sharing our plan now, before the midterm elections, because these reforms are needed no matter who wins in November,” they wrote in an op-ed in the Washington Post. 

They envision spending less time on cloture votes, as well as setting up a fast-track process for certain bills. In some ways, that would move the chamber closer to how things are done in the House, where bipartisan bills routinely pass quickly on suspension with a two-thirds vote.

The Senate has been “diminished as an institution,” according to their proposal, thanks in part to “the enormous workload and today’s political polarization.”

“In the coming few years it will either be further paralyzed by partisan politics and demands — breaking the few norms that remain — or it will rebound to an institution where robust debate and bipartisan policymaking both flourish,” they wrote.

They want to eliminate cloture votes on motions to proceed, amendments and nominations. The intervening day before a vote to break a filibuster would also be eliminated, with debate time condensed. 

Cloture votes have come to eat up more time than anyone anticipated, they argue. 

“Cloture was created in 1917 as a tool for the Senate to end filibusters and start voting. But the 60-vote threshold generally required for a cloture motion to pass is now deliberately abused to slow down the legislative process and delay voting on big issues,” they wrote in the Post op-ed.

While some see the Senate as the infamous “cooling saucer” that is meant to slow things down by design, Merkley and Daines want to move the chamber more in line with its faster-moving cousin, at least in one way. 

“A Senate version of the House suspension calendar” would allow certain bills that have advanced out of committee to pass on the floor with two-thirds of senators in support, and “robustly bipartisan” bills could get an even smoother glide path with a majority threshold.

In a statement, the pair said their proposal “will incentivize bipartisan cooperation, strengthen committees, empower members of both parties to bring and amend bills on the Senate floor, help prevent government shutdowns, and reduce needless procedural delays.”

With its lofty ambitions and big ideas, their blueprint is unlikely to become a reality anytime soon. While Senate leaders in both parties have moved to change certain filibuster procedures in recent years, norms and traditions are still powerful in the chamber. But by crossing the aisle to work together, Daines and Merkley seemed intent to send a message.

“To be clear: Both parties have played a role in creating Senate dysfunction, and both have a responsibility to fix it,” the pair wrote in the Post op-ed. “That will require real reforms that preserve what’s best about the Senate while straightening out what has gone wrong.”