McConnell Issues Threat to Democrats on Filibuster Changes

Republican leader says he would force votes on GOP-sponsored legislation

By Lindsay Wise, WSJ, January 10-11

WASHINGTON—Republican Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) issued a pre-emptive threat to Senate Democrats considering an overhaul of the chamber’s longstanding filibuster rule, detailing a plan to force tough votes on GOP-sponsored bills if Democrats make even modest changes.

Those votes would include contentious subjects such as blocking vaccines mandates or stopping fracking bans, his office said. Aides familiar with Mr. McConnell’s thinking say the threat is intended to cause heartburn for Democrats as Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.) tries to unify his caucus ahead of possible votes to amend or abolish the filibuster’s 60-vote threshold in the next week.

“Since Sen. Schumer is hellbent on trying to break the Senate, Republicans will show how this reckless action would have immediate consequences,” the Senate minority leader said in a statement to The Wall Street Journal.

Mr. Schumer responded by making an offer to Mr. McConnell shortly before the Senate adjourned Monday night: If all 50 Republicans agreed, the Senate would hold up-or-down votes at a majority threshold on each of Mr. McConnell’s 18 Republican bills, as well as Democrats’ two election-related bills.

Now the Republican leader seems to want to place a bunch of gotcha bills on the legislative calendar that he thinks would be tough votes for Democrats to take as some kind of payback for pursuing legislation to protect the sacred right to vote,” Mr. Schumer said. “Well, we Democrats aren’t afraid of these votes.”

Mr. Schumer asked for unanimous consent for the deal. Mr. McConnell objected.

With the House and White House under Democratic control, any Democratic bills that passed the Senate under such a deal likely would make it to President Biden’s desk for his signature. The Republican bills, even if they passed, would be unlikely to become law.

A growing number of Democrats say they need to eliminate or change the filibuster to pass federal elections legislation, which they call the party’s top priority, and Mr. Biden plans a speech in Atlanta on Tuesday on voting rights. In the past year, Senate Republicans have blocked Democrats from opening debate on elections legislation, a filibuster technique routinely employed by both parties when they are in the minority.

For now, Mr. McConnell is focused on discouraging one proposal mulled by Democrats, a change allowing bills to proceed to debate with a simple majority vote, rather than the 60 now needed. That would leave another 60-vote threshold in place before final passage.

If Democrats made the change, Mr. McConnell’s office said he would propose more than a dozen bills, including measures that would prevent the implementation of a private-sector vaccine mandate, prohibit so-called sanctuary cities from receiving federal grants or stop the Biden administration from implementing any fracking ban.

Other GOP bills on Mr. McConnell’s list, which he thinks can garner 50 votes or more, would prevent the Internal Revenue Service from implementing the Biden administration’s proposal to require banks to send to more information about customers’ accounts to the IRS and prohibit elementary and high schools from using as much as $164 billion in unspent Covid-19-relief funds if they aren’t open for in-person learning.

Using a Senate procedure known as Rule 14 to circumvent Democratic-controlled committees, Mr. McConnell plans by Monday night to start adding more than a dozen Republican bills to the legislative calendar.

In the Senate, the typical practice is for the majority leader to make motions to proceed. Technically anyone can, although such a move is rare.

Eliminating the 60-vote threshold on the motion to proceed is one of the least aggressive options Democrats are considering, as they try to entice centrist Democratic Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona to agree on rule changes that would enable them to pass elections legislation.

One election bill, the Freedom to Vote Act, would make Election Day a national holiday, mandate 15 days of early voting and require all states to allow mail-in voting. The other, named after the late Democratic Rep. John Lewis, would give the federal government more control over state voting procedures. Ms. Sinema and Mr. Manchin back the voting bills but have expressed a desire to keep the 60-vote threshold in place.

Other options fellow Democrats are pitching to Mr. Manchin and Ms. Sinema include returning to “talking filibusters,” in which senators would be able to move immediately to a final-passage vote once all members had exhausted their rights to speak, and requiring 41 senators to be present and voting to block a bill. Currently, at least 60 senators must be present and voting to advance legislation, allowing the minority to thwart bills without even having to set foot in the chamber.

Mr. Manchin stressed to reporters earlier this month that his preference isn’t to make any rule changes without at least some Republican buy-in. The Senate traditionally needs 67 votes to change the chamber’s rules, but in the past senators of both parties have used a process known as the nuclear option to eliminate the filibuster for executive, judicial and Supreme Court nominees with just 51 votes. But the filibuster for legislation has remained in place.

Mr. Manchin said Monday night that he hoped senators “can come to an agreement to fix things. Every American has the right to vote and should be protected.”

Some Republicans have in the past supported eliminating the 60-vote threshold on the motion to proceed to debate. Sen. Roy Blunt (R., Mo.) said in a recent interview that in 2016—when he was chairman of the Senate Rules Committee and Mr. Schumer was the top Democrat—he had proposed allowing debate to start with a simple 51 votes but that Mr. Schumer wasn’t receptive. Mr. Schumer’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

—Siobhan Hughes contributed to this article.

Write to Lindsay Wise at lindsay.wise@wsj.com