Sen. Joe Manchin (D-WV) on Sunday said that he stood by his opposition to eliminating the filibuster entirely — but he left the door open to reforming the procedural rule.
Appearing on MSNBC’s “Meet the Press” on Sunday, Manchin maintained that he won’t change his mind when it comes to his opposition against getting rid of the filibuster — but expressed that he is open to making it “a little bit more painful” to use.
“Make him stand there and talk,” Manchin said. “I’m willing to look at any way we can. But I’m not willing to take away the involvement of the minority.”
Manchin seemed to be floating the idea of bringing back something like the “talking filibuster,” where a member of the minority would have to take the Senate floor and speak, Jimmy Stewart-style, in order to block a vote.
Some Democratic activists encouraging a change to how the filibuster works have argued that centrist Democrats could pitch reforms to the filibuster as necessary to “save” it, rather than eliminating it. Manchin appeared to lean into that framing Sunday during a separate interview with Fox News’ Chris Wallace.
“I’d make it harder to get rid of the filibuster,” Manchin said when asked about his proposed changes by Wallace.
“I’m supporting the filibuster,” he continued. “I’m going to continue to support the filibuster. I think it defines who we are as a Senate. I’ll make it harder to get rid of it, but it should be painful if you want to use it.”
Manchin’s openness to reforms on the Senate filibuster, which at the moment sets the bar for most legislation at 60 votes in the Senate, comes as a growing number of Senate Democrats call to eliminate the procedural rule entirely as a way to move President Biden’s agenda forward. Support from Manchin, who serves as a key vote in a 50-50 Senate, would likely be needed to kill or change the filibuster.
Manchin also told MSNBC that he’s open to using reconciliation on the condition that bipartisan negotiations fail in the future.
“I will change my mind if we need to go to a reconciliation to where we have to get something done once I know they have process into it,” Manchin said.
Manchin said that reconciliation won’t be on the table until his “Republican friends” are able to weigh in on the matter.
“And I’m hoping they’ll get involved to the point to where we have 10 of them that’ll work with 50 of us, or 15 of them that’ll work with 45 of us,” Manchin said.
Manchin’s latest remarks come a day after Senate Democrats used reconciliation to pass their $1.9 trillion COVID relief bill with a simple majority.
WATCH: Sen. Manchin tells @chucktodd, "I'm not going to change my mind on the filibuster." #MTP@Sen_JoeManchin: "I’ll change my mind if we need to go to a reconciliation … But I'm not going to go there until my Republican friends have the ability to have their say also." pic.twitter.com/rzDnE18rTA
— Meet the Press (@MeetThePress) March 7, 2021
Manchin echoed the same sentiments from Meet The Press during the interview on “Fox News Sunday” as well.
Noting that the filibuster has been made “more comfortable” over the years, Manchin suggested that the filibuster should be “more painful” by harkening back to its original process by requiring that senators speak at length.
Manchin repeats opening to 'reforming' the filibuster on FOX: "The filibuster should be painful, it really should be painful and we've made it more comfortable over the years … Maybe it has to be more painful, maybe you have to stand there." pic.twitter.com/bJn77L1Mpi
— Josh Marshall (@joshtpm) March 7, 2021
Absolutely, positively, 100% YES!
Geez Joe I think you could have phrased that better, thanks for giving Republican more ammunition in regards to changing the filibuster.
Of course, with 50 GOP senators, a speaking filibuster could go on for a long, long time if there were no way to end it.
So, if Manchin and Sinema don’t want to end it entirely, let the rule be that for every 10 hours of debate the number of votes needed to end the debate drops by one. At the end of 100 only 51 votes would be needed.
Since this would consume 100 hours of legislative time, the Democrats could only use it two or three times a session, which in this case would be HR 1 (election reform), the George Floyd policing act, and climate change.
If I never hear this greasy-headed asshole’s name again, it will be too soon.
I strongly support the 40 votes required to maintain a filibuster. That requires an active, accountable action on the minority as a whole to block legislation. This would make it much harder for them to block popular legislation. I want it apparent who is blocking the legislation and I want them to have to work at it to contiinue blocking it.