Any Senator can filibuster almost any legislative proposal the Senate is considering. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are the relatively few which are considered under provisions of law that limit the time available for debating them. For example, Section 305(b)(1) of the Budget Act of 1974 restricts debate on a budget resolution, "and all amendments thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith," to not more than fifty hours. If no such provision applies, Senators can prolong the debate indefinitely on any bill or amendment, as well as on many motions, subject only to tabling motions or cloture.

Yet filibusters are not daily events even though there are Senators who adamantly oppose most major bills the Senate considers. One reason is that conducting a filibuster is physically demanding. But there are more compelling reasons for self-restraint. If Senators filibustered every bill they opposed, the Senate as an institution would suffer. It could not meet its constitutional responsibilities in a timely fashion and it could not respond effectively to pressing national needs. Public support for the Senate as an institution, and for its members as individuals, would be undermined. Furthermore, all Senators have legislation they want to promote. They appreciate that if they used the filibuster regularly against bills they oppose, other Senators would be likely to do the same, and every Senator's legislative objectives would be jeopardized. In short, Senators resort to filibusters only on matters of the greatest importance to them because this policy serves the long-term interests of the Senate and all Senators alike.

Nonetheless, the right to debate at length remains, and the possibility of filibusters affects much of what happens on the Senate floor. Many of the ways in which the Senate agrees to set aside its standing rules are designed in response to the possibility of filibusters. And just threatening to filibuster can give Senators great influence over whether the Senate considers a bill, when it considers it, and how it is amended.

If a majority of Senators support a bill that is being filibustered, they may be able to pass it anyway if they are committed and patient enough--and especially if they are able to invoke cloture. Even if cloture is not invoked, devices such as late-night sessions can strain the endurance and determination of the filibustering Senators. But the potency of filibusters does not depend solely on Senators' ability to prolong the debate indefinitely. From the right to debate flows the ability to delay, and the prospect of delay alone can often be sufficient to influence the Senate's agenda and decisions.

The legislative process is laborious and time-consuming, and the time available for Senate floor action each year is limited. Every day devoted to one bill is a day denied for consideration of other legislation, and there are not enough days to act on all the bills that Senators and Senate committees wish to see enacted. Naturally, the time pressures become even greater with the approach of deadlines such as the date for adjournment and the end of the fiscal year. So, for all but the most important bills, even the threat of a filibuster can be a potent weapon. Before a bill reaches the floor or while it is being debated, its supporters often seek ways to accommodate the concerns of opponents, preferring an amended bill that can be passed without protracted debate to the time, effort, and risks involved in confronting a filibuster.

[  Previous  :  Next  ]