President Biden on Wednesday night he defended filibuster, a procedural tactic that risks delaying much of his Senate agenda, even ifhe reiterated that he considered him a relic of Jim Crow.
"There is no reason to protect him other than you will throw the whole Congress into chaos and nothing will get done, "he said at a CNN city hall in Cincinnati. "Nothing at all will be done.
Mr. Biden said there was too much at stake to risk this level of "chaos " a fight against filibuster would unleash, including the voting rights legislation he still wants. see adopt. He also said waging a war on filibuster would play into the hands of Republicans seeking to delay his agenda. "Wouldn't my friends across the way love to debate filibuster instead of passing the Recovery Act? " He said.
At his first press conference as president last March, Mr. Biden has thrilled progressives who want to change the rules governing the Senate procedural signing weapon that requires a 60 vote to move a bill forward. Mr Biden said obstructionism was "the object of gigantic abuse ".
That month he also endorsed a return to what is called the systematic obstruction : the demand that opponents of the legislation be required to speak up and argue against it.
On Wednesday evening, he reiterated his support for a return to the old form, but made it clear that he thought it was a bout of systematic obstruction was just a distraction.
"I have been saying for a long, long time that the abuse of systematic obstruction is quite overwhelming "he said.lare.
But when it came to passing voting rights legislation, he added: "I want to m Make sure we don't just bring in all the Democrats, we bring in Republicans I know better. They know better than that. What I don't want to do is confuse myself right now in discussion whether or not it is a filibuster or not. Biden rejected the idea that overturning or modifying the filibuster was the only way for him to move his agenda to one. Congress
"I'm trying to bring the country together," he said. "And I don't want to that the debate is only on whether or not we have an obstruction, or an exception to obstruction, or going back to how obstruction was to be used before. "