President Biden says he supports changing Senate obstruction rules

“I don’t think you need to remove the obstruction, you have to do what it used to be when I arrived in the Senate in the old days,” said Biden in an interview with ABC News. “You had to get up and command the ground, you had to keep talking.”

Asked if that means he is supporting the return of the speaking obstructionist, an idea supported by an increasing number of Democratic senators, Biden replied: “I am. That was what it should be. “

Biden’s comments were made on the same day that Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell threatened to paralyze the Senate if Democrats made any changes to the obstruction.

“This chaos would not open the way for liberal change. It wouldn’t open up an expressway for Biden’s presidency to get into history books quickly, ”said McConnell (R., Ky.) In a speech on Tuesday. “The Senate would be more like a hundred-car pileup. Nothing moving. “

Democrats are at least two votes less than the 51 required to end legislative obstruction, a move that would pave the way for them to pass comprehensive legislation on voting rights, immigration, arms regulation and other measures that are unlikely to attract support. bipartisan.

Alternatively, Senate Democrats are exploring a return to traditional speaking obstructors, like the one portrayed by Jimmy Stewart in the 1939 film “Mr. Smith goes to Washington. The idea was recently launched by West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin, a center Democrat, who, like Biden, said he was opposed to abolishing the obstruction altogether, but open to revision.

Today’s senators can obstruct a bill without saying anything. They don’t even need to appear on the camera. Now the momentum is building to adjust the rules, at least, to make the obstruction more difficult.

“Senators don’t have to stand for a minute to close the Senate,” Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, the second Senate Democrat, said in a speech to the Senate floor on Monday. “All they have to do is threaten, call, get on a plane, come home from Washington and come back on Monday to see how the obstructionist is doing. ‘Mr. Smith calls. That wouldn’t have been a good movie, would it? “

Democrats blame a change in the 1975 rule that allowed absent senators to count against the 60 votes needed to end debate over a bill and proceed to final approval. They say this has made obstructors less onerous for the minority.

“What is the pain?” asked Mr. Manchin on Fox News last week.

Manchin’s support for restoring the speaking obstructionist is not new. In 2011, he was one of 46 Democrats who voted in favor of a proposal by Senator Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) That would require senators to take the floor and make comments to block the legislation. No Republicans voted in favor and the measure failed.

If it had passed, it would have allowed the Senate to enter a period of broad debate if a simple majority of senators voted to end the debate on a bill. Senators who wished to block the legislation would have to ensure that at least one of them was on the floor presenting arguments or the majority could pass for final approval with 51 votes.

Merkley said he is not tied to his 2011 approach. “There are a lot of nuances in different ways of doing this,” he said. “And I’m not ready to say it in a way.”

In a 50-50 Senate split between the two parties, the obstructionist’s fate is the key to much of President Biden’s agenda, including his promise to raise the minimum wage and sign a voting right bill. His $ 1.9 trillion Covid-19 aid package was approved only with Democratic votes in the Senate through a quick process known as reconciliation, which is restricted to budget-related bills.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki reiterated on Tuesday that Biden’s preference is not to make changes to the obstruction. But she said he remains open to hearing ideas about the discussions taking place in Congress.

After Democrats gained control of the Senate in January, Manchin and Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D., Arizona) publicly reaffirmed their opposition to abolishing the obstruction, but none of the senators ruled out changing it. Earlier this month, Democratic Senators Bob Casey of Pennsylvania and Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada joined Manchin’s endorsement of speaking obstructors, as did Senator Raphael Warnock (D., Ga.).

“This is not a theoretical debate for us now, given what is happening in Georgia with respect to voting rights,” said Warnock, pointing to state bills from the Republican Party that would add requirements or restrictions to voting by mail and would reduce the early voting time. “I am willing to consider talking obstruction, as well as other options,” he said.

Senator Angus King of Maine, an independent who argues with Democrats, said that talking about obstructions “is worth discussing”, along with another idea cited by Manchin that would require the presence of 41 senators to hold the debate, instead of the 60 needed to end the debate under the current rules. Mr. King is a longtime advocate of obstruction and his preference does not change. But he said his vote depends on McConnell. “If he takes the position that ‘we are going to obstruct everything’, it could make me reconsider my position.”

McConnell told reporters last week that he wants to maintain the obstructionist’s status quo. In his speech on Tuesday, he added that Democrats who are pressing Sens. Manchin and Sinema “are not just advocating some procedural adjustments. They are defending a system of government that is radically less stable and less consensus-oriented ”. He warned that Republicans may refuse to appear, denying Democrats a quorum to conduct any Senate matter.

Asked by reporters on Tuesday whether he could support changes in the obstruction, McConnell said: “It is not broken and does not need to be repaired.”

But some Republicans say they are willing to talk about the projects to death, if that is necessary to preserve the 60-vote limit.

“Here’s what I would encourage Senator Manchin to do: stay strong,” said Senator Lindsey Graham (R., SC). “If you have to give in to something, if we have to talk, I’m fine.”

Senator Jerry Moran (R., Kan.) Said that talking about obstruction is common sense. “If you are concerned enough with passion and commitment to an issue, you must be willing to use the obstruction as it was originally planned,” said Moran.

“I am absolutely open to it and it resonates with me,” said Senator Todd Young (R., Ind.). Still, Young is reluctant to see change happen when Democrats are in power. “I think it rewards very bad and cynical behavior,” he said.

Disrupting the Senate shouldn’t be easy, said Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D., Connecticut).

“We’re going to have the cribs again,” said Blumenthal, referring to when senators used to nap on makeshift beds in the Senate during obstructions that lasted for hours. “Let’s go back to the debates that last all night, if that’s what they want to do, to block a deeply necessary and popular measure. Let them act on the ground and get the American people to see them as they are. “

—Ken Thomas contributed to this article.

Write to Lindsay Wise at [email protected] and Siobhan Hughes at [email protected]