“I think we should get rid of the obstruction, without a doubt. It is an obstacle to overcoming the pandemic and reviving the economy by doing things,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat from Connecticut.
The tense standoff over the issue is preventing a power-sharing agreement between parties in the 50-50 Senate, where Vice President Kamala Harris has the tiebreaker vote. Republican leader Mitch McConnell, now in the minority, insists that language that guarantees the protection of minority rights – through the requirement that 60 votes are needed to overcome obstructing bills – be added to a mandatory organization resolution. .
“Mitch McConnell had no problem getting rid of the obstruction to a United States Supreme Court candidate for a lifetime appointment, but he’s not doing well to get rid of the obstruction for unemployment assistance for families who are unemployed because of COVID-19 “said Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts. “I’m done with Mitch McConnell.”
Even though Harris may break ties in favor of the Democrats, the party cannot take full control of the Senate until it reaches an agreement with the Republicans on an organizational resolution. They are operating with the organizational resolution of the last Congress, when the Republican Party was the majority. Because of this, for example, confirmation hearings for President Joe Biden’s cabinet choices this week are being chaired by Republicans.
Republicans are trying to take advantage of the urgency to pass an organizational resolution to pressure Democrats to agree not to destroy obstruction in search of legislation. But with Democrats vehemently refusing to do so, it is unclear how long it will take for sides to reach an agreement and that could drag on.
A unique feature of the Senate
McConnell argues that preserving an absolute majority of votes to pass legislation is a unique and important feature of the Senate, which the Founders believed should be a body where compromise between parties would be needed to balance the strict majority rule of the House of Representatives. .
McConnell also argues that Democrats used the obstruction numerous times when they were in the minority to block legislation from the Republicans and the Trump administration.
Schumer, who said his caucus would have a serious discussion on the matter if they gained control of the Senate, did not say whether he wanted to change the obstruction by law. But he does not want to rule out the possibility for fear that the Republicans will obstruct almost everything that the Democrats put on the ground.
Democratic Senate Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois said his party “will not give in” to McConnell’s wishes: “If you did that, there would be an unbridled use of it. I mean, nothing stops you.”
Democratic resistance
Despite the dismay over the issue, it does not seem that Democrats would have enough support in their caucus to change the rules because at least two centrist are resisting.
“Chuck is right to do that, he is the leader. I am in the minority in the caucus on this,” said Manchin. “He has a right to use this to leverage what he wants to do.”
Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, said he does not want to consider changing the obstruction unless he determines that Republicans are overusing it.
“At the moment, we don’t know if there will be abuse,” he said. “If they are going to use it to obstruct absolutely everything, I am prepared to change my mind.”
Supporters of the obstruction have reason to fear that it may be further reduced. Both parties have been obstructing party votes – known as the “nuclear option” – changes to Senate rules to weaken obstructors against nominees. Democrats did this for the first time in 2013 to make it easier to confirm nominees for the executive and judiciary of then President Barack Obama. Republicans extended it in 2017 for Supreme Court nominees, releasing three of then President Donald Trump’s choices to the upper court.
Regarding the organizing resolution, Schumer argues that the Senate should adopt the same power-sharing agreement that was approved in 2001, the last time the Senate was divided 50-50. That agreement said nothing about destroying the obstructor, which was not used as often as it is now.
“Our caucus believes that the easiest and most just bipartisan way to reach an organizational resolution is to enact the 2001 agreement that Senators Lott and Daschle reached a bipartisan form at that time. We, our caucus, are strongly opposed to any strange dispositions, “he said referring to then Republican leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and then Democratic leader Tom Daschle of South Dakota.
But McConnell argued that the 60-vote limit for legislative obstructionists is a permanent Senate rule and therefore must be maintained in the organizing resolution.
“If the conversation about unity and common ground should be meaningful, and certainly if the rules of 20 years ago should be our guide, then I cannot imagine that the Democratic leader would prefer to suspend the power-sharing agreement and simply reaffirm that his side it will not break this permanent Senate rule, “McConnell said in plenary.
Democratic Senator from Hawaii, Brian Schatz, summed up the frustration that Democrats feel about the impasse in this way: “McConnell is threatening to obstruct the Organizational Resolution that allows Democrats to assume the positions of committee chairman. It is an absolutely unprecedented request, crazy and counterproductive. We won the Senate. We received the hammers. “