Passage of the SAVE Act is of paramount importance to and many congressional Republicans.
In his speech, the president implored lawmakers “to approve the SAVE America Act to stop illegal aliens and other unpermitted persons from voting in our sacred American elections.”
The House approved the plan to require proof of citizenship to vote last month, 218-213. But, as is often the case, the hurdle is the Senate. Specifically the Senate filibuster.
So some Republicans are trying to save the SAVE Act.
Its important to note that President Trump never called for the Senate to alter the filibuster in his State of the Union address. But in a post last week on Truth Social, President Trump declared that “The Republicans MUST DO, with PASSION, and at the expense of everything else, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.”
Again, the president didnt wade into questions about overcoming a filibuster. But “MUST DO” and “at the expense of everything else” is a pretty clear directive from the Commander in Chief.
Thats why theres a big push by House Republicans and some GOP senators to alter the filibuster â or handle the filibuster differently in the Senate.
Its rare for members of one body of Congress to tell the other how to execute their rules and procedures. But the strongest conservative advocates of the SAVE Act are now condemning Senate Republicans if they dont do something drastic to change the filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
Some Senate Republicans are ready to push for changes. Or, at the very least, advocate that Senate Republicans insist that Democrats conduct what theyre referring to as a “talking filibuster” and not hold up the legislation from the sidelines. It takes 60 votes to terminate a filibuster. does that by “invoking cloture.” The Senate first used the cloture provision to halt a filibuster on March 8, 1917. Prior to that vote, the only method to end a filibuster was exhaustion â meaning that senators finally just run out of gas and quit debating.
So lets explore what a filibuster is and isnt â and dive into what Republicans are talking about when theyre talking about a talking filibuster.
The Senates leading feature is unlimited debate. But ironically the “debate” which holds up most bills is not debate. Its simply a group of 60 lawmakers signaling to their leaders offstage that theyll stymie things. No one has to go to the floor to do anything. Opponents of a bill will require the majority tee up a cloture vote even if legislation has 60 yeas. Each cloture vote takes parts of three to four days to process. So that inherently slows down the process â and is a de facto filibuster.
But what about talking filibusters? Yes, senators sometimes take the floor and talk for a really long time. Hence, the “unlimited debate” provision in the Senate. Senators can generally speak as long as they want, unless theres a time agreement, greenlit by all 100 members.
Thats why a “filibuster” is hard to define. You wont find the word “filibuster” anywhere in the Senates rules. And since senators can just talk as long as they want, they might argue that suggesting they are “filibustering” is pejorative. Theyre just exercising their Senate rights to speak on the floor.
However, a true filibuster is a delay. For instance, the record-breaking 25 hour and 8 minute speech last year by Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., against the Trump administration was technically not a filibuster. Booker began his oratory on the evening of March 31, ending on the night of April 1. Once Booker concluded, the Senate voted to confirm Matt Whittaker as NATO Ambassador. The Senate was supposed to vote on the Whitaker nomination on April 1 anyway. So all Bookers speech did was delay that confirmation vote by a few hours. But not much.
In 2013, , R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours, in his quest to defund Obamacare. But despite Cruzs verbosity (and a recitation of “Green Eggs and Ham” by
