The purpose of the filibuster is to contribute to the Senate’s status as being the world's
greatest deliberative, legislative body.
The filibuster is a rule that allows for indefinite debate in the United States Senate.
Anyone can debate a bill as long as they want to debate a bill, uh, that is, until three-fifths
of the members of the Senate vote to end debate through a mechanism called cloture.
In one form or another, the filibuster has always existed in the Senate.
Senators had the right to speak indefinitely, and to extend debate as long as any one senator
chose.
The filibuster is certainly an important part of the Senate's history, and a part of its
rule.
It's supposed to be a different kind of legislative body.
One in which, uh, extended, unlimited debate is the norm.
From its beginning, the Senate was a place where any one senator could continue the debate
on a legislative proposal as long as he or she chose.
And the final question on a legislative matter was achieved only by unanimous consent.
This required senators to do the hard work of actually being on the Senate floor
and continuing debate.
Just a little over a hundred years ago, I believe it was in 1917, the Senate adopted
its first cloture mechanism.
Originally, cloture required two-thirds supermajority.
And, a few decades ago, that was changed again to bring it to where it is now
under Rule 22,
which is that three-fifths of the senators, or 60 out of 100, can vote to bring debate
to a close.
But the underlying principle has remained essentially the same throughout the history
of the Senate.
The crux of the controversy surrounding the filibuster really relates to the abuse of
the process to bring about delay and to avoid debate, rather than using the filibuster to
fulfill its intended purpose, which is to extend an promote debate.
Article I of the Constitution is clear in giving each house of Congress the authority
to develop its own rules of procedure.
Uh.
Now, whether or not it's used entirely in a manner consistent with the Constitution
may a be a different question.
Some people have started to conflate the question of how many votes it takes to end debate with
how many votes it takes to pass a legislative measure.
Part of this is due to a misunderstanding of how the Senate rules have been used, and
part of this is due to an abuse of the filibuster mechanism over time.
It's become more controversial as it has been more routinely invoked, and even more controversial
as it has become routinely invoked for the purpose of delay, rather than for the purpose
of extending actual debate.
When members see it as simply a delay mechanism, uh, or an impediment to actual debate, it
undercuts the very purpose for which it was created.
When it becomes the norm, and people just start to anticipate that you have to have
60 votes to pass anything, it starts to appear unconstitutional.
That's really not the case.
It takes 60 votes to close debate.
There are other ways of bringing debate to a close.
The filibuster, if used properly, pushes the Senate towards legislative consensus.
That's the whole idea behind it is to bring people together, and to allow members to state
their objections, to offer up improvements, and eventually to get to the point where they
decide further debate isn't necessary.
It’s served our nation well, and I think it has for most of the history of our republic,
done what it was supposed to do.