Garry Gamber asked:


The filibuster has been a tool available to U.S. Senators during Senate floor discussions on legislation and appointments since the U.S. Constitution was ratified. Both the Democratic and Republican parties have valued the filibuster as a means to bring compromise and bipartisanship to bitter and divisive debates.

The word, filibuster, as it applies to the American political process refers to a political delaying tactic such as a long speech used by politicians to delay or prevent the passage of legislation. The older meaning of filibuster refers to the illegal act of plundering or piracy; of capturing a ship and its cargo and holding it for ransom.

The etymology of the word, filibuster, seems to date back to about 1560-1570 when the English anglicized the Dutch word, vrijbutier, into freebooter. A freebooter is understood to be a person who goes in search of plunder; a pirate, a buccaneer. Shortly thereafter, the French adopted filibustier and the Spanish adopted filibustero to mean the same thing. In the 17th century the English transformed the Spanish word into filibuster to describe the actions of the pirates who attacked the Spanish explorers of the New World. In the 1800’s the Americans popularized the word filibuster, referring to the activities of famous pirates operating in Latin America and the Caribbean.

Filibuster as Piracy

From 1830 to 1860 the countries of Cuba, Mexico, Honduras, Costa Rica, and Nicaragua were all victims of various filibuster campaigns. The filibusters were led by groups of adventurers who, without the consent of the American Government, but with the aid of private American finance, tried to seize political power in these Latin American and Caribbean countries. Part of the aim of the filibuster campaigns was to empower the population of these countries and bring forth a revolution that would be beneficial to American interests, mainly the slave trade.

Financial support for the filibusters came largely from the southern states where parades of celebration were held in their honor and songs were written about their adventures. Officially, the U.S. did not support the filibuster campaigns because the military was spread too thin to be able to provide adequate enforcement of the laws against the involvement. Many citizens saw the campaigns as an aspect of “manifest destiny,” the idea that America had a right to unlimited expansion.

A couple of famous filibusterers include Narciso Lopez and William Walker. Lopez liberated Venezuela from Spanish rule and attempted three times to liberate Cuba. Walker, from Tennessee, annexed parts of Mexico, including Lower California, and declared himself to be president. The U.S. government did not support Walker and eventually brought him to trial.

The era of the Filibuster Movement ended when the U.S. Civil War started. Attention and resources were given to the defense of the North and the South, ending the efforts of the filibuster campaigns.

Filibuster as a Political Tool

During the period from 1840 to 1860, numerous Southern politicians made long speeches during Senate floor debates on legislation bills for the purpose of delaying the bill or preventing a vote on the bill. The word filibuster was borrowed to describe these speeches, which were thought of as piracy of time and opportunity. Henry Clay, in 1841, gave what is considered to be the first filibuster speech.

As the debate over the slavery issue became more important in Congress, southern politicians used the tactic of long dilatory speeches to block all civil rights legislation. The word filibuster became popularized during this pre-Civil War period.

Legislative Rules

The U.S. Constitution did not give direction to the House of Representatives or to the Senate regarding how to conduct everyday business and how to conduct debates on the floor. Each body was expected to create and adopt their own rules.

On day 2 of the first Senate meeting a special committee was created to “prepare a system of rules for conducting business.” A few days later, on April 7, 1789, the special committee filed their first rules report and on April 16, 1789, the Senate adopted their first set of rules. The first set contained 19 rules and on April 18 number 20 was adopted. At this point the special committee was disbanded.

The rules committee was recreated on several occasions during succeeding years for the purpose of creating new rules or revising existing rules. Since 1789 there have been 7 adoptions of new or revised rules; in 1806, 1820, 1828, 1877, 1884, and 1979. Some rules have been amended and passed by the Senate without going to a committee. The change to Rule XXII in 1917 to provide for a cloture procedure is a good example. There currently are a total of 43 Standing Rules of the Senate.

The House Rules and Manual of the U.S. House of Representatives does not allow for filibuster speeches. Each Representative is allowed to hold the floor to debate a question for one hour and may only speak once on each question. The House is a large body and the members thought it wise to limit the amount of time that a Representative may speak.

The Senate is an entirely different situation, however.

Senate Rule XIX

Rule XIX is the key rule that provides a structure for debate on the Senate floor. A key provision of the rule states that when a Senator rises to seek recognition during floor debate, he or she is guaranteed a chance to speak on the question for as long as he or she wishes. The presiding officer is not given discretion in this matter and must recognize each Senator in order. During the period of time that a recognized Senator is speaking the question before the Senate cannot come to a vote. The Senator cannot be interrupted or be forced to stop their speech without their consent.

Debate Rule XIX does not limit the number of Senators who may speak on an issue. The rule does, however, limit each Senator to two speeches per legislative day on each issue. During a filibuster period the presiding officer will typically call a recess rather than an adjournment at the end of the calendar day, keeping the legislative day alive when the Senate reconvenes. This tactic effectively limits each Senator to a maximum of two speeches on each issue. It is possible, however, for a Senator to offer an amendment in order to create a new debatable question, on which the Senators may make two more speeches.

A relatively recent provision in Rule XIX, called the “Pastore Rule” in honor of Senator John Pastore of Rhode Island, requires that debate on a question must be germane to the question. During filibuster periods this rule is enforced to prevent Senators from making meaningless, off-topic speeches. During the 1930’s through the 1950’s several Senators, such as Huey Long and Strom Thurmond made long filibusters which included readings of recipes, the Congressional Record, the Declaration of Independence, and other non-germane topics.

While a Senator is speaking on an issue he or she must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously. During a filibuster-length speech this requirement creates fatigue in the speaker. However, the speaker may yield to a question from another Senator without losing the floor. The other Senator can provide relief by asking a very long question followed by a short answer, followed by more long questions. In this manner a group of Senators can work together to extend the length of a Senator’s speaking period.

Senate Rule XXII

The procedures for invoking cloture for purposes of wrapping up the floor debate and bringing the question to a vote are contained in Rule XXII. The process requires a motion that is signed by at least 16 Senators and presented to the presiding officer while the question is being debated. The rule requires that the cloture motion must be seasoned, meaning that it cannot be acted upon until the second day after it is presented.

One hour after the cloture motion has matured on the third day the presiding officer interrupts the Senate proceedings and presents the cloture motion to the Senate for a vote. At this point an automatic roll call vote is required.

In 1975 the Senate voted to change the number of votes needed to invoke cloture to 60% from the previous 67%. A compromise was struck, however, because some Senators feared that if changing the Rule was too easy that the majority needed to invoke cloture might be reduced further in the future. Therefore, the Senate agreed that to make future rule changes, including changing the cloture rule itself, would require the traditional 67% majority vote.

If the motion to invoke cloture is defeated the Senators can reconsider the vote or file a new motion to invoke cloture. For example, in 1988 there were eight cloture motions on a campaign finance reform bill and all eight motions were defeated.

If a motion to invoke cloture is successful, then the effect of invoking cloture only guarantees that a vote on the question will take place eventually, but not immediately. After the successful cloture motion has passed the Senate is said to be working under cloture. Rule XXII imposes a maximum cap of 30 additional hours for debate, quorum calls, parliamentary inquiries, and other proceedings prior to an actual vote on the question. During this cloture period each Senator is entitled to speak for a total of not more than one hour.

Once cloture has been invoked under Rule XXII, the point of a filibuster is largely lost. Without exception, proceedings are wrapped up in less than 30 hours and the question is brought to a vote.

Conclusion

The filibuster speech in the Senate has enjoyed a long tradition and has been used for several purposes. On one hand the filibuster has been used to persuade others of the validity of the minority position on a question. Open and unlimited debate can change minds and sway opinion. The filibuster speech process may help to defeat an issue once a vote is taken.

On the other hand, the filibuster has been used to stall or prevent a vote on an issue. The filibuster speech or the threat of a filibuster may cause the issue to be tabled or withdrawn and not brought to a vote on the floor.

The minority party in the Senate counts on the use of the filibuster as a means to prevent the majority party from wielding too much influence. Such a tool encourages the two major parties in the Senate to work in nonpartisan ways to resolve differences. The filibuster creates a need for compromise. It has been suggested that without the filibuster tool the Senate would be much less productive in producing legislation.

Elizabeth O’Reilly asked:

President Obama jumped right into the news conference tonight, immediately focused on health care, and keeping the reform proposal debate the main subject.  In fact, only two questions, which were followed by brief answers, covered other topics.

The president explained some of this preoccupation, as well as his rush to push the reform through, by explaining that “it’s not about” him, but about the American people; the bushels of mail he receives everyday by American families “clobbered” by costs and their hardships; the fact that “if you don’t set deadlines in this town, things don’t happen”; and the fact that he feels it is being made out to be a game by many, while indeed, “this is not a game to the American people”.

It’s true.  In an AP story, a group of Republicans were overheard by reporters, in which one of them was heard making comments along the lines that if they beat this bill, it will “break” Obama, make him weaker, give way to some slippage in his approval ratings.  As if this bill were to be used as leverage to gain political advantage.  More and more, on both sides of party lines, we are seeing officials, those whom we elect to be our leaders, concerning themselves more over power, politics, and trying to rule, than over American interests.

According to the President, two thirds of the costs of the reform will be paid for by “redesigning” the current health care structure, by reducing administrative costs, utilizing technology systems, and taking out profit motives for insurance companies who are seeing record breaking profits while steadily raising premiums.  The other third, he suggests, should be paid for by “reducing itemized deductions for the wealthiest Americans, giving them the same deductions as everybody else.”  To me, this is fair: one hundred percent of my family’s income is taxed; the first ten percent of many millionare’s incomes are taxed.  Why is this?

Obama insists this will not add to the deficit.  In fact, he claims that he won’t sign a bill that would add to the deficit, and named some of the work his administration has been doing to reduce the current deficit by $2.2 trillion over ten years, and are constantly working to eliminate waste and lower it further.   However, as he pointed out, after numerous bailouts, recovery packages, stimulus packages, now a health care program, the government keeps on spending.  He noted that Americans are “understandably queasy” about this, because while we people keep sacrificing and keep needing to cut our own costs and reduce our own budgets, it doesn’t seem that the government is doing with the same, with OUR tax dollars.  I appriciate that this was acknowledged, but I must say, we’ve all heard it before, for years, that the government will start spending out money a lot wiser and eliminate the waste; and so far, reducing spending and funding seems to be hitting places locally the hardest.  I’d like to see the deficit reduced without cutting off funding for states.

When asked about cuts to medicare, Obama explained the Republican proposed Med Pack program, which supposedly takes the politics out of medicare, will not cut benefits, and “fills half of the donut hole” in benefits, the area in which seniors coverage temporarily runs out, and they have to pay a certain amount out of pocket before their benefits resume.  He made the points that insurance premiums have gone up three times faster than wages, and the biggest force behind the current national deficit is the skyrocketing costs of health care.  He claims to want a plan that will provide more security, ensuring people will be able to keep coverage if they lose or change their jobs, that will not add to the deficit, and that will keep the government out of health care decisions.  He promises that he will not sign a bill that will be paid for “on the backs of middle class Americans”, and that does not slow the rising costs of health care.

Obama is a very talented speaker.  I believe this may have been a driving factor as to how he got elected, with his ideal plans and the presentation of them.  At the risk of getting too personal, I voted for him, and that’s not a decision I regret.

However, this health care reform, at least when it’s coming out of his mouth, sounds too good to be true, and I’m going to have to pull the pleaser card.  A president telling a people what they want to hear.  It’s an experiment, and it could prove to be a dangerous one.  For example, the President claims that by making health care more efficient and redesigning its current structure, as I pointed out earlier, will cover two thirds of the outrageous price tag.  I’m no financial expert, by in my opinion, that’s an exaggeration, and a guess at best.  Let’s say that “redesigning” only covers a third of the cost, or even less.  Then how will we go about making up the difference?  Has anyone even thought of a provision that would make up this kind of loss?

My main issues with the plan, from the start, were the costs, and the rush to get it through.  To Obama’s credit, he IS loosening up on that a bit; during the conference tonight, instead of promising they will accomplish this by the August recess, he promised it will be done “this year”.  Maybe still a push, but it sounds a lot better than one month.  For the last week, Obama has been making at least one speech per day, pushing the reform bill.  I understand that this has been one of his main goals since his campaigne, and that he was voted into a very high pressure and problematic presidency.  Yet, congress needs to be able to do their job.  This is what they are here for, in a delicate system of checks and balances.  The process can be called drawn out and inefficient, but it IS functional.  While there may indeed be a need to set deadlines in that “town” to get things done, they  must be reasonable in order to serve that function.  You can’t just trump their purpose.

And I was not very pleased that none of the press present questioned the president on the television ads.  What an absurd way to gain support for your agenda.

Thanks to everyone who watched the conference tonight and gained information from it, and don’t forget to contact your congress people with your thoughts on the health care reform!