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.

Carol Forsloff asked:


 

Whatever people say about Joe Biden’s gaffes, no one would accuse him of not being intelligent and articulate. We all know he can be wordy, perhaps, but not one who doesn’t have a lot of governmental experience that gives him a broad perspective on the national level.

Biden was laid back for awhile. We didn’t see him much on the national news except for the debate. But given the outspoken nature, and the type of speech of his Vice Presidential rival, Joe Biden has picked up pace and is beginning to take on the opposition with the type of passion and flair for which he has become known to many.

At a time of great controversy, Joe Biden may well be the one who indeed helps us make the final decision. He hasn’t gotten into the mud with the others and has a record that may upset some conservatives, but even those people know Biden to be someone who knows his material. If these same people were to be asked to choose between Biden’s knowledge on the economy and that of Sarah Palin, most of them would choose Biden as well.

We should focus attention on Joe Biden these days for lots of reasons. First of all, he has the background that we just discussed. Second both John McCain and Barack Obama have more than the ordinary amount of physical risks. McCain has had cancer four times; Barack Obama, as a black man, has had his life threatened publicly with one plan intercepted before the Convention. So the position of Vice President is more critical now than almost any other time except during the wars fought by the United States.

Here’s a snapshot of Joe Biden’s experience. Biden was born in  Scranton, Pennsylvania where he lived before becoming involved in politics. He received his law degree in 1969, then became a city councilman the following year. He became an attorney in 1969 and was elected to serve on the city council in 1970. Biden became one of the youngest senators ever elected when he first became Senator in 1972 and has been re-elected by comfortable margins to serve as one of those with a term that has been one of the longest terms in the Senate of anyone presently in Congress.

Biden presently chairs the Foreign Relations Committee. This certainly gives him the foreign relations experience the country needs now. He has helped resolve conflicts around the world, especially the war with Bosnia. Although Biden voted in favor of the original Iraq War Resolution in the Congress, when he recognized that he, along with other Senators had the wrong facts presented to them, proposed resolutions in order that the US take a different course in the region of the Middle East.

Joe Biden’s knowledge extends beyond foreign relations experience. He has served as chairman of the  Senate Judiciary Committee where he has dealt with drug problems, crime, and violence against women issues.  He also served as chair of the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  Biden chaired the Judiciary Committee during the contentious hearings. That allows him to manage controversy and get people talking about important issues. He knows qualifications, how to understand the needs of people in social situations and has a record of advocacy.

Most of the talk on the Internet seems to come from those who question whether Joe Biden is either liberal or conservative enough and whether his gaffes get him into trouble. That might be a good thing, given the extremes of left and right. Perhaps that’s because Biden may not the glamorous creature that we cling to these days, but his steady hand on the till that McCain referred to in the town hall meeting with Barack Obama might be what we need in a crisis. These are the days when potential crisis can occur. So he deserves our serious examination.

Chad asked:

After less than eight months in office, President Barack Obama’s administration is under serious scrutiny by some leading immigrant advocates.

As the legislative drive for health care insurance reform picks up steam, pro-immigrant groups are increasingly alarmed by proposals that target both documented and undocumented resident of the US.

In a telephonic press conference September 16, Latino rights, religious and political leaders blasted policy ideas circulating around the White House and Capitol Hill as not only an attack on the immigrant community

but a threat to public health as well.

“We’ve been deeply disturbed by developments in the health care debate and the treatment of immigrants in it,” said Frank Sharry, executive director of the Washington, D.C-based Americas Voice immigrant advocacy organization.

Sharry criticized Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Montana), President Obama and Democrats for bending over backwards to accommodate political opponents, especially Republicans like shouting South Carolina Congressman Joe Wilson, who “demonize immigrants.”

Sharry and other pro-immigrant leaders said they were deeply concerned by measures unveiled in the Senate Finance Committee and in other quarters on Capitol Hill that would exclude immigrants from participating in an insurance exchange even with their own money, prevent children of undocumented residents from getting coverage, probe the residency status of emergency room patients, and make verification of residency status an expanded, cumbersome process for both citizens and non-citizens alike.

According to Eric Rodriguez, vice-president of the National Council of La Raza (NCLR) an estimated 7 of 28 million legal immigrants do not have health insurance.

Under the plan released by Senator Baucus today, undocumented immigrants, who will be virtually barred from obtaining any kind of health insurance at all, would face fines of $950 and upwards if they managed to obtain any sort of emergency treatment.

US Representative Luis Gutierrez (D-Illinois) voiced dismay that the White House was considering keeping many immigrants out of the insurance exchange, especially after Gutierrez and other members of the Hispanic Congressional Caucus agreed that no public monies or tax credits could be used by undocumented residents in a new health insurance reform scheme.

Gutierrez contended that prohibiting undocumented residents from being in the exchange even with their own cash could result in masses of people losing their health insurance coverage.

“What about millions of undocumented workers who have health care through their employers?” Gutierrez asked. “Are they going to lose their benefits?”

“Health care policies should not be dictated by a heckler,” said NCLR President Janet Murguia, in a separate statement also made on September 16. Despite some improvements in the plan announced by Sen. Baucus,

Murguia warned that the legislation coming out of the Senate Finance Committee had the potential to “drive up costs, leave people uncovered and threaten public health.”

Kevin Appleby, director of migrant policy for the US Catholic Conference of Bishops, said that the Church, one of the largest health care providers in the country, often provides treatment to immigrants. The migrant

advocate characterized the denial of health care to sick people as a “fool-hardy” and “mean-spirited” policy. Asserting that the Obama Administration had “capitulated” to anti-immigrant forces, Appleby said

that elected officials had sacrificed public health care on the altar on politics.

Rev. Luis Cortes, president of Esperanza USA, said that it wasn’t too long ago when widespread concern surfaced about the H1N1 virus, but that current proposals on the table would jeopardize people in dire need of health care.

Both political parties, Cortes contended, are “running the fastest to see who is the harshest.” Judging looming actions by Congress and the White House, as “morally punishable by Christian scripture,” Cortes said that the political price could be high for Democrats as well as Republicans. Adding that the immigrant community was once hopeful of the Democrats, Cortes said that local elections would have to be examined “one-by-one” in the future.

Numerous analysts consider New American voters, immigrants and their children, a key voting bloc that swept the Democrats into the White House and Congress last year. Many pro-immigrant groups are growing increasingly frustrated by the pace of immigration reform promised by presidential candidate Barack Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Speaking to reporters, Rep. Gutierrez recalled how the Latino community was inspired by Obama’ candidacy, and took to heart the fellow Illinois Democrat’s pledge to bring undocumented workers out of the shadows and on to the path of legalization. “That’s the President I voted for, not the one who says you cannot have health care,” Gutierrez said.

The longtime Latino political leader and other participants of the September 16 press conference called for the end of “wedge” politics and the passage of comprehensive immigration reform.

Michael C. Podlesny asked:

It has been over two years since hurricane Katrina devastated Louisiana and Mississsippi. With many homes still not rebuilt, demolished or renovated, it raises the big question about flood insurance and whether or not there should be reform in the insurance industry.

In the September 2007 issue of Mortgage Banking it is reported that the decision of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee to reauthorize and reform the National Flood Insurance Program by moving the Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act of 2007 in late July and that the decision would curtail the coverage for second homes while adding for windstorm damage. However, the committee explained that the bill would give advantage to small business owners.

Mortgage companies require flood insurance for homes located in flood-prone areas, but homeowners in lower-risk areas may also consider coverage to protect their property, according to Terri Cullen of The Wall Street Journal. Average premiums for a flood insurance is about $600 a year, but those in high risk areas can pay as much as $5,400 a year. Tenants in low-risk areas may pay about $200 a year or $2,200 for high-risk zones. Leading to the fact that it is very expensive to those who really need it, spawning debate as to whether the government should step in and create legislation for flood insurance in those areas that desperately need it such as we`ve seen along the Gulf Coast.

Heightened interest in the natural catastrophe policy is a plus for supporters of the optional federal charter. Congress has dealt with several natural catastrophe related matters, including the House Financial Services Committee`s vote to expand the National Flood Insurance Program to cover wind risks. A definite win for those who need it.

National Underwriter / Property & Casualty Risk & Benefits Management`s Susanne Sclafane reports of the decision of the New Orleans federal appeals court on the need for the homeowners to purchase the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) in New Orleans, Louisiana. It is triggered by the claims on damages caused by the Hurricane Katrina. Justin Roth, senior federal affairs director of the National Association of Mutual Insurance Cos., said that the flood maps of the nation needs an update to make sure that claims are really due to floods to prevent other claims.

With the U.S. House of Representatives approving the H.R. 3121 legislation that intends to expand the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), by a vote of 38-29, it aims to offer coverage for wind damage as well. It also includes provisions that would require the Federal Emergency Management Agency to revise the country`s flood maps by 2010 ,and terminate the subsidies for structures built before NFIP`s establishment, which Roth feels is vital.

Flood insurance is vital those homeowners and renters along our country`s coastline and those near larger bodies of water. Although many more bills remain being debated in Washington in regards to flood reform, one thing is clear, for those that need it most, reform can not happen quick enough.

By: Michael C. Podlesny