what is said in a filibuster?

Factual Questions
1

I am not a very political-minded person, but I’ve been reading about recent filibustering lately. All I really know about a filibuster is that it involves a lot of talking and is used to prevent an issue or vote from ever happening–an official stall tactic. (Geez, I’m probably not even right about that part, but I’m going from what I remember from history class 15-20 years ago.)

I’m curious, though, if there are transcripts available (online) of what exactly is said by the person giving the filibuster. Didn’t Strom Thurmond once filibuster for 24 straight hours? What could he have possibly said during all that time? They can’t possibly be talking about the issue the whole time, can they? If the object is simply to talk (and everyone there knows it), are they free to talk about the weather? Or their dog? Or the morning’s sports pages?

Can someone please a.) enlighten me about filibustering, both recent and old, and/or b.) tell me where I might find a transcript of one of these filibusters? I’ve tried googling, but I haven’t had any success.

2

More than once they’ve simple read the bible, or the phone book. The Senate rules simply require that the person keep talking. They don’t have to make sense or say anything relevant to the bill or motion at hand.

Sorry, no cite.

3

The point is to run out the clock so to speak. So they can say anything they want.

4

These days talking is not required for a filibuster. A senator may simply give notification of a filibuster and the filibuster is in effect until a successful cloture vote.

5

At one time, Senator Huey P. Long (the Kingfish, and one-time governor of Louisiana) read recipies into the record. Presumably, those recipies are still on the record somewhere.

The longest filibuster lasted 75 days, against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Strom Thurmond made the longest single speech in 1957, also against civil rights legislation, at 24 hours.

Filibusters through history.

6

OK, I think I sort of got part of my answer: they can say whatever they please. But it would be interesting to see exactly what they said. It’d be like reading stream-of-consciousness fiction, maybe. Or are filibusters so pointless that no one takes down what is said? Surely there are recordings…

7

Every word spoken on the floor in the Senate and the House is recorded in the Congressional Record, going all the way back to 1873. That includes whatever is read during a filibuster.

8

Once when I took a poly sci course the teacher told the following story. Whether true or not, I cannot say.

A long-winded senator was filibustering and someone shouted, “Ah, who cares?” “Who cares?” was the reply, “I’ll tell you who cares.” Whereupon he began to read the DC telephone directory.

9

You can go to thomas.loc.gov and look up Senator Harry Reid’s speech on November 10, 2003, in the Congressional Record. This was a filibuster of about 10 hours or so to protest the upcoming 30-hour judge talkathon.

He reads from his book about his hometown, Searchlight, Nevada, and talks about many other interesting topics. Senator Roberts, who was in the Chair during the evening, asks Senator Reid some questions about rabbits, matchbooks, and rubber tires.

(Sorry, can’t link temporary files)

10

The Congressional Record – This is where all things Senatorial and Representative are recorded, including filibusters. The online database only goes back as far as 1994, but you can presumably order older editions through that site or sites like it. Hell, your library may even carry back issues.

I wonder how many copies of the Bible, the Washington, D.C., phone book, and the Constitution the various back issues collectively contain…

11

Regrettably, my earlier post was devoured. Just a couple of weeks ago, on or about the 12th, Minority Whip Harry Reid filibustered for just shy of nine hours–not a record by any means, but still a good haul.

You can find the text of his speech in the Congressional Record. During his session he read the first six chapters of his own book about his hometown of Searchlight, Nevada, it’s easiest to find by simply punching in the keyword, “goulash.”

Here’s an exciting example where Reid daringly yields to piercing questions from Senator Roberts:

[QUOTE]
Mr. ROBERTS. Will the distinguished Senator yield for a question?

Mr. REID. I will yield for a question not to exceed 1 minute, Mr. President, without my losing my right to the floor.

Mr. ROBERTS. I thank the distinguished Senator. While sitting in my capacity as the acting Presiding Officer, going back to chapter four of your book, I got a little confused as to how the city of Searchlight actually was named Searchlight. I got mixed up between Lloyd Searchlight and the kitchen matches. I was wondering if you, with your intimate knowledge of who is a chef and who is a cook and poor Bill who has died–obviously you don’t have any fish fries anymore, but I am interested in the goulash–but with your intimate knowledge of Searchlight, do you have a theory, a pet theory as to how Searchlight actually got its name, of the three hypotheses that you mentioned?

Mr. REID. I actually know how Searchlight got its name, I say to my friend through the distinguished Presiding Officer. Searchlight got its name because someone said, I found gold,'' and someone said he would need a searchlight to find it.’’ I feel fairly certain that was it.

I think, as I said in my book, if I took the naming of Searchlight to a jury I would win, but not every time. We know the Lloyd Searchlight thing is history that, as I said, only deserved one paragraph. I gave it two. But it is not much of a theory.

But the one dealing with the matches is pretty good. I think that is something that a jury once in a while–if we did it 10 times, maybe 2 out of the 10 would find that.

Mr. ROBERTS. If the distinguished Senator would yield one more time–

Mr. REID. Under the same conditions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Those were kitchen matches, not the modern?

Mr. REID. Oh, yes, I say to my friend who remembers those little wooden matches.

Mr. ROBERTS. Yes.

Mr. REID. He remembers those wooden matches. They still have them now but usually they are hard to find and usually they have the real long ones they use for lighting fireplaces.

Yes, the Senator from Kansas, I know, remembers those wood matches. I compliment the Senator from Kansas for being so attentive. You did pick up a lot. You were here for quite a few chapters.

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. President, if I could just ask one more additional question of the Senator?

Mr. REID. Under the same conditions.

Mr. ROBERTS. Did you ever solve the problem with the rabbits with regard to the cactus they would eat or wouldn’t eat? And I was wondering if you thought about just basically desert rocks? They have some beautiful rocks out there and I doubt seriously if the rabbits would have eaten the rocks.

Mr. REID. Mr. President, the cactus is an ongoing saga. The cactus, I am working on that. I am not going to say in front of everybody how much money I have spent on cactus. My wife knows and is not very happy about it. I hope she is not watching because I just spent a few more dollars.

Mr. ROBERTS. Rubber tires, perhaps?

Mr. REID. Oh, no, my home is much nicer than rubber tires. In fact, we do have a magnificent rock. I am glad you mentioned that…

[QUOTE]

12

The Congressional Record dates back to 1873, but the Senate’s debates – except when sitting in executive session – have been reported since the first Congress:

While it is generally true that these records include “every word spoken on the floor,” both houses rountinely grant unanimous-consent requests that let a member “revise and extend” his or her remarks. These requests usually result in a member “extending” his or her remarks by inserting many words that were never spoken on the floor, but which are printed as if they had been – which saves a great deal of actual speechifying on the floor. The requests sometimes result in a member “revising” words that were actually spoken, but customarily only for the purpose of correcting slips of the tongue, not as a way of deleting ill-considered speeches.

The Congressional Record is available online (although not always up to the minute) at the Government Printing Office’s GPOAccess site.

13

What does “executive session” mean, Mr. Melendez?

14

The term has become common in parliamentary law for a closed meeting, but it originated in the Senate:

15

The Senate Executive Journal for most of the 19th Century is now available online.

Other notable filibusters include The Kingfish’s recipe rant, Strom Thurmond’s anti-civil rights speech, and Senator Byrd’s similar attempt to prevent passage of the Civil Rights Act, the last important part of an 87-day delay.

Here’s a list of Senate all-night sessions, which is where the filibuster often takes place. And speaking of gay marriage, here’s an article on the origin of the word itself.

16

Semi-Hijack-

If a senator reads from a book, it’s entered into the congressional record. The congressional record is IIRC available free to the public.

What happens if a senator reads copyrighted text? EG Senator Hypothetical (D), takes the floor and proceeds to read Harry Potter And The Hole In The Wall Of The Girl’s Showers by JK Rowling, aloud in its entirety. The book was just released a few months ago and is indisputably protected by copyright law. But, the full text of the congressional record is available free to the public. So what the heck happens?

17

That’s an interesting question. I’m going to guess that Senator Hypothetical is guilty of copyright violation, and could theoretically be sued. They probably restrict themselves to public domain texts, or their own works. Although, Thurmond supposedly read recipes out of the Fanny Farmer Cookbook.

18

A very interesting question, and I too am curious about the answer. But I am sure that this guess isn’t it. A senator or representative enjoys absolute immunity from liability, under the Speech and Debate clause, for anything said on the floor: “and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they [the Senators and Representatives] shall not be questioned in any other Place.” U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 6.

I am wondering, though, how the copyright law protects an author whose work is quoted in a congressional debate.

19

WAG- Quoting would be covered under fair use. If a senator read a few recipes from To Serve Man- A Cookbook For People (written by Karl Wurf, published by Owlswick Press), he or she would not violate copyright law. Nor would the reporter exceed fair use in transcribing them. However, reading too large a portion or the entire work would not fall under fair use.

20

I don’t think that reading a book aloud could ever be copyright infringement. The question is what happens when that reading is published. It’s an interesting question. Either way, as has been said, representatives and senators are immune with regard to anything they say on the floor.