Question: I've never seen a real all-night filibuster like in "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Why is this? Have the Senate's rules changed? Wilmington, DE - 5/3/00
The rules have not fundamentally changed, but the way the Senate's leadership responds to filibusters has. Since the 1970's, the trend has been not to retaliate against a filibuster by keeping the Senate in session all night, forcing the opponents to stay on their feet and talk until they drop. You don't see an old-fashioned on-your-feet filibuster very often because of the "dual track" system. Leaders have decided it is more efficient to get unanimous consent to "freeze" the bill that is being filibustered in place and jump to another track and process a different bill on which there is less controversy. The logic behind the practice says that taking the filibustered bill "off-stage," permits the leaders to keep the Senate's legislative agenda moving on the floor while trying to negotiate a breakthrough on the problematic bill behind the scenes. The filibustering Senator continues to get what he/she wants: a delay in the bill's consideration, if not an insurmountable barrier to its adoption. So, both sides benefit from dual-tracking. However, dual-tracking has had a converse effect as well. It has contributed to a greater number of filibusters. Senators are filibustering more frequently partly because they know a full-blown endurance contest won't develop. As time pressures build and the agenda backs-up due to an actual or threatened filibuster, the Senator conducting it hopes the leaders will be inclined to end the logjam through negotiations over the policy content of the bill in question, or decide to pull the bill off the agenda. The filibustering Senator expects to be approached by the leadership after a short time, and get offered a deal to take the controversy into the cloakrooms.
The leverage of the filibuster comes from the fact that the Senate cannot vote on a measure until all Senators refrain from seeking recognition to speak. At that point, the Chair puts the question to a vote automatically. However, as long as any Senator wishes to speak, rules mandate that he/she be recognized. So holding forth on the Senate floor prevents a vote from occurring. A filibustering Senator may not sit down, nor leave the chamber, nor yield the floor and expect to get it back. If he/she does anything to lose the floor, recognition goes to the next Senator seeking it and the agenda on the floor may change. A true filibuster is hard work. If the leadership wished to "wear down" the filibustering Senator, it could simply keep the Senate in session all day and all night until the Senator quits or until sufficient votes are found to end the filibuster through a formal process, known as "cloture." But this strategy not only "wears down" the filibusterer(s), it also wears down everyone else. Not much gets done and people just get more tired and less agreeable all around, making it that much harder to forge a consensus. So modern leaders have sought other approaches.
There have been a few recent "old-fashioned" filibusters. In 1992, Senator Alphonse D'Amato (R-NY) filibustered a tax bill for 15 hours, 14 minutes. In 1981, then Senator William Proxmire (D-WI) filibustered a public debt ceiling limitation bill for 16 hours and 12 minutes. The all-time individual record, however, is still held by Senator Strom Thurmond (D-SC), who filibustered a civil rights bill in 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes.
http://www.c-span.org/questions/weekly19.asp 
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
