Last fall, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) appeared as adamantly opposes obstruction reform like any Democrat.
“I think the obstruction has a purpose. It is not used often, it is less used now than when I arrived, and I think it is part of the Senate that differs, ”she said in September. (In reality, the number of obstructors – or at least the number of votes cast for break obstructionists – have skyrocketed in recent years.)
The senator’s support for the rule, which essentially requires that most legislation receive 60 votes to pass the Senate, was seen as so strong that, on Friday afternoon, the conservative National Review published an article with the triumphant headline. “Feinstein still supports the obstruction. ”In that article, Feinstein is quoted as responding” I accept now, yes “when asked if she supports leaving the 60 vote requirement in effect.
But the National Review article appears to have a very short lifespan. On a statement released Friday night, Feinstein now says he is “open” to changing Senate obstruction rules, if necessary, to pass laws such as expanding background checks for firearm purchases, reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act or a bill voting law.
“Ideally, the Senate can reach a bipartisan agreement on these issues,” said the 87-year-old senator in the statement. “But if that proves impossible and Republicans continue to abuse obstruction by demanding votes for coagulation, I am open to changing the way the Senate’s obstruction rules are used.”
Feinstein’s journey from vocal advocacy of obstruction to someone more open to reform reflects that of many of his fellow Democrats. In 2017, for example, Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) was one of the two main organizers behind a letter signed by 61 senators, calling on Senate leaders to “preserve existing rules, practices and traditions” that allow senators obstruct legislation.
However, Coons, who is widely seen as a close ally of President Joe Biden, said last summer that he is open to reform because “he will not sit idly by for four years, watching the Biden government’s initiatives be blocked at every step” .
Biden himself endorsed a kind of reform earlier this week, saying, “in the old days”, a senator who wanted to maintain an obstruction “had to stand up and command” and “keep talking”. The president suggested that the Senate could reinstate this requirement, allowing the majority to end an obstruction if its supporters stopped giving speeches from the Senate floor in favor of it – creating a so-called “speaking obstruction”.
Even Senator Joe Manchin (D-WV), a senator who has repeatedly said he wants to keep the obstructionist alive in some way, has indicated that he is open to demanding that obstructors speak – although Manchin is reluctant to open the door to other types of reform. obstruction.
That leaves Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ), who said last month that she would even support strengthening the obstruction by reversing previous reforms, as the main Democratic obstacle in reforming the obstruction. Since Democrats control exactly half of the 100 Senate seats plus the vice presidency, they will likely need each member of their bench to support obstruction reform in order for any obstruction reform to pass.
The moment seems to be on the side of “talking about obstruction”, but it is not clear that such a reform would matter much
If the obstruction reform passes the current Senate, it is likely to include some form of “spoken” obstruction. This reform appears to have the most support among Democrats, who seem cautious about the total abolition of the obstruction. Feinstein’s statement, for example, says that a speaking obstructionist is “an idea worth discussing.”
But the requirement that at least one senator give a plenary speech opposing a bill to block it is unlikely, in itself, to contribute to reforming the Senate. In its simplest form, a speaking obstructor requires that only a senator who supports an obstructor be on the ground at any given time. So, as long as the 50 members of the Republican Party caucus are allowed to tag-team, each taking turns maintaining the obstructionist, they could theoretically keep an obstructionist forever.
Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR) recently proposed a more robust reform that would circumvent any tag-team efforts – requiring that at least 41 senators who oppose the legislation remain in plenary while a talking obstruction is taking place. Manchin, however, seemed to get that idea off the table earlier this week.
Biden, in turn, suggested support for a different limit for obstructionists during an interview with George Stephanopoulos of ABC News on Tuesday. According to Biden’s idea, if a pro-obstruction senator pauses while speaking in favor of this obstruction, “someone could come in and say that I propose the question of” – a motion to “move” a “question” may refer to a maneuver procedure that aims to end the debate on a subject and force a vote.
This could create a chaotic but effective process for ending the obstruction, as senators who hoped to block the legislation grew tired and senators from the opposite party looked for opportunities to force votes to end the obstruction.
In any case, negotiations on the obstruction reform are still very much underway in the Senate. And it remains to be seen whether resisters like Sinema are moving towards reform. But Feinstein’s recent statement is good news for anyone hoping to see opponents of the reform obstruction softening their positions – and for anyone who wants an ambitious legislative agenda to be passed by the Senate in the next two years.