Obstruction reform: Democrats still face a complicated path to destroy obstruction, despite Manchin’s openness to reforms

Obstruction reform: Democrats still face a complicated path to destroy obstruction, despite Manchin’s openness to reforms

by

To change the rules of obstruction, Democrats will need total unity among their 50 members behind a single plan, but there are still many disagreements on some important issues: namely, whether to maintain the 60-vote requirement needed to break an obstruction.

Senator Joe Manchin, the West Virginia Democrat who first opened the door on Sunday to weaken the obstruction, is still in favor of maintaining the 60-vote requirement, people familiar with his thinking told CNN, even with an increasing number. of his colleagues calling for changes to the rules so that a simple majority of 51 senators can vote to move the legislation forward.

The debate has profound implications not only for the body’s traditions, but for the direction of President Joe Biden’s agenda and for the presidents to come, since the Senate – unlike the House – has long been where the minority can frustrate the majority will.

But critics say the obstruction has been increasingly abused by the minority in the last generation and is in dire need of reform. Manchin, who has long promised to protect the obstructionist, appeared to be open to a significant change in the rules: forcing members to go to the plenary and discuss whether they want to try to speak a bill to death, much like popular scenes from the classic film “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”.

Manchin’s comments have now sparked renewed conversations among Senate Democrats to at least change the rules to force senators to go to the floor and mount a “talking obstruction”, an action they hope will at least discourage the tactic, since now a simple threat of obstruction is enough to force a lengthy set of procedural steps before being forced to clear a 60 vote limit.

“I think a common refrain you have heard from so many members is, ‘If there is going to be an obstruction, it really needs to be an obstruction that those who want to obstruct should present their case to the American people.'” Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat from Oregon and a lead advocate for obstruction, said in an interview on Monday. “They should have to spend time and energy to show up and stay on the ground.”

Merkley, who wants to destroy the obstruction at once so that a simple majority of 51 senators will be enough to push the legislation forward, has spent years lobbying his colleagues to adopt changes in tactics. Now, he says, there has been a “huge change” in his caucus in favor of rewriting the obstruction rules.

According to one of Merkley’s proposals, if at least 41 senators vote to block the end of the debate over a bill or candidate, they would enter a period of extended debate, in which one or more senators could prevent the final vote, as long as they could physically continue debating the issue on the floor.

But as soon as they don’t have someone on the floor, the president would declare that the time for extended debate is over and the majority leader could move on to a final vote, where a simple majority vote would be required for the passage of a nominee or an account. Still, changing the rules to 51 votes provided for in the proposal is something that Manchin is unlikely to support.

Discussions within the Senate Democratic bench are expected to gain momentum in the coming days to see if they can unify on a single plan, senators and advisers said on Monday. To change the rules, Democrats need to employ a rarely used tactic, called the “nuclear option” – a process in which a majority party can change the rules without minority consent.

'This is the year to do this': Democrats move forward on expanding background checks
In 2013, with Barack Obama as president, the then Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, infuriated Republicans when he invoked the so-called nuclear option to allow presidential nominees, in addition to the Supreme Court’s choices, to be promoted by a simple majority of 51 senators. Later, in 2017, the then Senate majority leader, Mitch McConnell, invoked the nuclear option to allow nominees to the Supreme Court to be promoted by a simple majority, a move that led to the eventual confirmation of then President Donald Trump’s choices of Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh in the upper court.

And now, with Democrats seeking to push forward an ambitious agenda that has little support from the Republican Party, calls from the left are growing to go that way again to destroy the obstruction to allow the legislation to deal with arms control, immigration as well. and climate change such as voting and LGBTQ rights.

“If we continue to see obstruction from our Republican colleagues as we saw through this Covid relief package, I think patience will run out, even in moderate Democrats,” said California Sen. Alex Padilla, a freshman appointed to fill the vacant seat. by Vice President Kamala Harris.

Democrats were only able to advance Biden’s $ 1.9 trillion aid package, as they employed a budget process known as “reconciliation” that cannot be obstructed in the Senate, meaning that a simple majority is all that is needed. it is necessary to approve the project according to that specific procedure. It passed on Saturday by a 50-49 vote.

But they will not be able to use the reconciliation process in other policy measures that are outside the parameters of the budget rules in the Senate, including the federal minimum wage of $ 15 an hour that was judged to be outside the limits of the procedure.

Biden skeptical of obstruction changes

Biden, whose legislative agenda has so far been unsupported by Republican lawmakers, continues to resist changes to Senate rules that would lessen the obstructionist’s power and his 60-vote requirement.

It is a stance born of his 36 years in the Senate, an absolute respect for his traditions and practices and an awareness that Democrats will not always be the majority, say people close to Biden. And while it is not an unwavering view – the White House said on Monday that it was simply his “preference” not to change the rules – it is one that puts him at odds with members of his own party.

In immediate question is a voting rights bill that Senate Republicans are largely opposed to. HR 1, approved by the Democratic-led House last week, would expand access to voting and improve accountability and transparency in Washington, its sponsors say. The bill lacks 60 votes in the Senate.
House approves comprehensive electoral bill that would thwart Republican Party efforts to restrict voter access

“Voting for me must be free of obstruction, just as we plan for the budget to move forward under reconciliation, civil rights laws and voting rights laws must also be subject to reconciliation efforts,” Rep. Jim Clyburn, a South Carolina Democrat, who is close to Biden, said on CNN on Sunday.

Still under pressure on whether Biden could support such an exemption from the obstruction rules, the White House did not budge.

“That is not his preference,” said White House press secretary Jen Psaki. “He believes that, with an issue as important as the right to vote, there must be a way forward to work with Democrats and Republicans to make this happen, so nothing has changed in his policy on obstruction.”

Democrats say there is still an opportunity to change the views of Biden and other skeptics in his party.

“I feel that things change by a penny here,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, a Washington Democrat who co-chairs the Congressional Progressive Congress, told CNN on Monday. “And when we have several defeats of things that President Biden has promised, and that we should hand over voting rights like HR 1, I think that will move him. And we are maintaining the pressure.”

Still, supporters of the obstruction change still have an obstacle the size of Manchin ahead of them. And they will have to convince others who have been skeptical of the changes – including Sens. Angus King from Maine and Kyrsten Sinema from Arizona – to agree too.

Democrats who promote rule changes say they shouldn’t worry about the long-term ramifications.

Merkley said on Monday “I don’t care” that a change in the rules will backfire if Democrats are back in the minority in the next two or four years.

“Minority Democrats would have the same ability to delay things if we were willing to take the floor and present our case to the public that the Republicans would have under the speaking obstruction,” said Merkley. “If your position is right, if your cause is just, then you will do well in the next election for taking your position.”

CNN’s Olanma Mang contributed to this report.

.Source