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.

Stephanie Vance asked:

Long time readers of the tipsheet know that the guru and her husband often go to the New Orleans Jazz and Heritage Festival. If you aren’t sure what that is, check out www.nojazzfest.com. If you want to know what others are doing in New Orleans check out the webcam at Tropical Isle on Bourbon Street anytime after 6:00pm or so…

As usual, in the midst of three days of fun, frivolity and fantabulous jazz I, of course, got to thinking about advocacy. I mean, wouldn’t you? And this wasn’t just in a daiquiri-induced haze while wandering around the French Quarter. No, in fact, I was struck by the similarities between Jazz Fest and every advocacy campaign with which I’ve been ever been affiliated.

Following are five techniques you should use to get you through any advocacy campaign – or music festival for that matter.

Strategize: One does not just walk into Jazz Fest and wander around. With eleven stages offering up multiple acts, only careful planning will ensure that you’ll catch what interests you most. At Jazz Fest, this tactic applies doubly to your food options. Before the festival, my husband and I looked over the musical acts and decided what we wanted to see in about ½ hour. We spent another 3 hours drooling over the food. Jambalaya. Bread Pudding. Po Boys. Muffalettas. See, no one can eat everything. But you can eat some of everything with a good plan – and stretchy pants.

The same applies to your advocacy efforts (the strategizing, not the stretchy pants). Think of your strategy development in four stages: First, you want to outline your specific goal – usually in terms of dollars or policy outcomes. Then you want to look at the variety of ways to reach that goal. For appropriations, for example, this might include earmarks, additional line item funds or even report language directing the agency to spend more. Third, consider the competition, distractions and road blocks standing in your way, such as other worthy programs in need of funding (yes, there are a few). Finally, in light of all this information, identify your preferred path. We navigated through Jazz Fest using this four step process – I know it will work for advocacy.

Develop Themes: Themes help you develop a strategy and stick with it — even in the face of temptation. Saturday, for example, was “fried things” day in the food court. Sure, I was tempted by the chocolate dipped strawberries and the Veggie Mufaletta. But I had made a commitment to “fried things.” I wasn’t going to let “fried things” down. I stayed focused and the fried green tomatoes and fried eggplant did not disappoint. Then on Sunday I shifted my theme to “things with cheese,” thus reveling in many other delights at the festival.

Advocacy efforts can be as distracting as the Jazz Fest food courts. One moment Congress is happily focused on transportation issues – two seconds later they’re debating the War in Iraq and then the Farm Bill. It can be difficult to stay focused on your issue when 25 different and equally compelling issues are being waived in your face. Don’t be tempted! Find a theme and stick to it through thick and thin.

Improvise: On the flip side, all the strategizing and thematic development in the world won’t help you when all your best laid plans go awry. Maybe that fabulous act (or fabulous Congressman) that you were looking forward to turns out to be not that fabulous after all. Disappointed, for example, in one of the acts I went to see, I stopped by another tent and danced, bopped and shouted my way through a phenomenal show from a blues / soul / jazz artist named Ruthie Foster (really, go look her up). I had never heard of her before and would never have found her if I hadn’t improvised.

Every once in a while circumstances might dictate that you abandon all your strategies and themes and just make stuff up as you go along. Don’t like that member of Congress? Go see if you can find a new one. Aren’t pleased with how the legislation is progressing? Find new and creative ways to change it in to something you can support.

Build Coalitions: On Saturday I parked myself in front of one of the three main outdoor stages and waited for one of the acts I REALLY wanted to see later in the day – Santana. I quickly became dependent on the kindness of strangers – as they became dependent on me. See, when you’re smack dab in the middle of a throng of 10,000 people, it’s hard to get out. So we built alliances and assigned jobs. Some people had the job of foraging for beer. Some went for food. Others shared umbrellas (as shields from the sun). My job was to help coalition members map out the shortest route from our fiefdom to the outside world. Without their help, I’m not sure I could have survived 8 long hours in the 90 degree heat.

Effective advocacy campaigns rely on coalitions as well. Maybe your partners aren’t helping you get beer – but in a winning coalition everyone performs specific tasks that keep the group moving toward the mission.

And, of course, there’s persistence. Votes won’t always go your way. Legislation won’t always be introduced in a timely fashion. The food court might even run out of Spinach Artichoke casserole (hey, it happened). But every year it gets a little easier and you learn a little more. You learn to bring your mud boots with you in case it rains. You learn to buy your sweet potato pies from Mr. Williams’ pie stand on Friday because he attends church on Saturday and will not be selling pies. You learn to stuff yourself with spinach artichoke casserole as soon as you get to the festival. Armed with this information (and enough beer, sunscreen and advocate motivation) you will be able to persevere until the fat lady (or Santana) sings.