Wayne Morse, Dem, OR (at the time, since was serially Rep, Ind, Dem) once spoke just over 24 hours. That may be the record. But eventually, he had to stop and sleep and that ended his one-man filibuster.
There is a story (I cannot vouch for it, but my 8th grade civics teacher told it) of a senator who was going on a filibuster when someone stood up and shouted, “Who cares?”. “Who cares?”, he replied. I’ll tell you who cares and proceeded to start reading the DC telephone director, names, addresses and phone numbers. The point of the story is to emphasize how irrelevant to the measure under debate the speech need be. There is no relevance rule and no time limit. A determined group of a half dozen could keep the debate going forever if there weren’t a cloture rule. Incidentally, it used to require 2/3 to declare cloture.
Is there any other legislative assembly in the world that allows unlimited debate until a super-majority cuts it off? If this weren’t forbidden under the GQ rules, I would give my opinion that the Dems should just call them on it–let them debate endlessly and let the country see them for the obstructionists they are.
Small nitpick - in 1953 Senator Morse set the record for the longest filibuster at 22 hours and 26 minutes. This record was to be broken in 1957 by Strom Thurmand who spoke, nonstop, for just over 24 hours (24 hours 18 minutes, to be precise).
As others have stated, a filibuster takes advantage of the lack of limit of debate in the Senate. In the house, there is a limit to how long someone can speak. Not the Senate. To end debate, you need 3/5 vote for closure. Without the 3/5 vote, the speaker could speak for as long as they can.
It use to be while one person was doing a filibuster, both sides would meet and work out a compromise. A senator who is filibustering has the floor and no other floor business can be done. You can have committee meetings, but no other votes on other bills may be taken. The most famous filibusterer was Senator Huey P. Long who used it quite effectively. Strom Thurmond spoke for over 24 hours against the civil rights act which is the longest filibuster.
There is no debate or filibustering during reconciliation. A reconciled bill is passed with a simple up or down majority vote. Reconciliation happens due to the U.S. Congress’ dual house structure where each house has more or less the same power. The same bill must pass both houses. Thus, if the Senate votes for one version of a bill, and the House another version of the same bill, it is brought before a reconciliation committee to be worked out. The health care bill will go through a reconciliation process since there are differences between the Senate and House versions of the bill.
Gah! This is totally wrong. Reconciliation is a special process that has to do with certain budget bills. It has NOTHING to do with the House and Senate passing different versions of bills!
Negotiating the differences between House and Senate-passed bills is NOT reconciliation! These negotiations happen in a conference committee, and the conference process has nothing whatsoever to do with filibusters, the budget, or the reconciliation process.
For the record, “reconciliation” as a budget term came from the plan to have a bill pass late in the session of Congress to take into account changes in the Federal budget that had occurred since Congress passed the budget resolution earlier in the year – in effect, “reconciling” the differences between the last budget resolution and the most recent information on the state of the Federal budget.
Emphasis added. Ok so…
[ol]
[li]Filibusters can be disallowed through the reconciliation process. [/li][li]Separately, budget resolutions cannot be filibustered. [/li][li]A vote for cloture (60 votes) can end a filibuster.[/li][/ol] Do I have this right? If so are there additional methods for ending filibusters?
You got it pretty much right. There are and have been a rather small number of provisions of law that require that the Congress (including the Senate) debate and vote on matters within a limited time period. For example, “fast track” procedures for trade agreements negotiated by the President had to be debated and voted on within certain time periods. This particular law has expired.
A conference committee, an ad hoc body, negotiates until they get a single bill. A majority of the conferees from the House and a majority from the Senate must agree to the compromise bill. It is then made public, and there are rules about how long it must be posted on the Internet before it can be brought up for a vote.
The product, called a conference report, cannot be amended and is subject to slightly expedited procedures. To compare, a bill can be filibustered as it is being called up, on any amendments, and on final passage, essentially. A conference report can only be filibustered on final passage. It has to be passed by both the House and the Senate, and then it is sent to the President for signature or veto.
Great info… thanks! Specific to this health bill then, I’ve been wondering why there has been little publicity about the product of the various committees in the House. Would they even have to come up with a compromise for the whole body? If so, why so little apparent proggress?
Or could they just wait for the Senate to come up with a final product and try to pass it.
I don’t get this part. Couldn’t the Dems make sure that they have 51 Senators present, and when a Republican suggests the absence of a quorum, the presiding officer could say “The Chair takes notice that a quorum is, in fact, present” and move on? The GOP could appeal from the decision of the chair, but it’s decision would be affirmed by majority vote.