By Chad Pergram
福克斯新闻
发布时间：2026年3月11日 美国东部时间下午1:22
查德·佩格拉姆报道了唐纳德·特朗普总统推动《拯救美国法案》（SAVE America Act）通过的努力，以及参议院共和党人在是否采用”持续发言阻挠议事”策略以通过该立法上的分歧。
现在你可以收听福克斯新闻文章了！
收听本文
10分钟
《拯救美国法案》的通过对总统唐纳德·特朗普和许多国会共和党人而言至关重要。
在国情咨文演讲中，总统恳求议员们”批准《拯救美国法案》，阻止非法移民和其他未经允许的人员在我们神圣的美国选举中投票”。
众议院上月以218-213的投票结果通过了要求公民身份证明才能投票的计划。目前，该立法已出现不同版本。而正如往常一样，最大的障碍来自参议院——具体而言，是参议院的阻挠议事规则。
[图片1]
2025年9月10日，华盛顿特区美国国会大厦外的参议院公园举行了一场”只有公民才能投票”集会，支持通过《拯救美国法案》。（Kent Nishimura/Getty Images）
因此，部分共和党人正试图挽救《拯救美国法案》。
需要注意的是，特朗普在国情咨文中从未呼吁参议院改变阻挠议事规则。但上周他在Truth Social平台发文称：”共和党人必须充满激情地、不惜一切代价通过《拯救美国法案》。”
“必须做”和”不惜一切代价”是总统发出的明确指令。
这就是为何众议院共和党人和部分共和党参议员正大力推动修改阻挠议事规则——或至少主张参议院坚持要求民主党进行所谓的”持续发言阻挠议事”，而非在一旁坐视立法进程受阻。结束阻挠议事需要60票支持，参议院通过”启动终止辩论程序”（invoke cloture）来实现这一点。参议院首次使用终止辩论程序是在1917年3月8日，此前结束阻挠议事的唯一方法是耗尽辩论（即参议员最终筋疲力尽，停止辩论并投票）。
现在我们来解析什么是阻挠议事，以及共和党人所谓的”持续发言阻挠议事”策略。
参议院的核心特点是无限期辩论。但具有讽刺意味的是，阻碍大多数法案通过的”辩论”其实并非真正的辩论——而是一群60名议员在幕后向其领导人发出信号，表明他们将阻挠法案，而无需有人在议事厅内实际行动。法案反对者需要多数党发起终止辩论投票，即便立法已获得60票支持。每次终止辩论投票需要3-4天的流程，这本身就减缓了立法进程——构成事实上的阻挠议事。
什么是”持续发言阻挠议事”？
参议员有时会站上发言席长时间讲话，这就是参议院”无限期辩论”规则的体现。除非全体100名议员达成时间协议，否则参议员理论上可以无限发言。
这正是阻挠议事难以定义的原因——参议院规则中并无”阻挠议事”一词。由于参议员可以随意发言，他们可能会争辩说”阻挠议事”是贬义词，自己只是在行使参议院的发言权。
真正的阻挠议事是拖延。例如，新泽西州民主党参议员科里·布克去年3月31日至4月1日进行的25小时8分钟超长演讲，从技术上讲并非阻挠议事。布克结束演讲后，参议院立即投票确认马特·惠特克为北约大使——该提名原定于4月1日投票。因此，布克的演讲仅将确认投票推迟了几小时，影响有限。
2013年10月，德克萨斯州共和党参议员泰德·克鲁兹连续发言21小时，试图阻挠奥巴马医改法案通过。尽管克鲁兹口若悬河（甚至背诵了苏斯博士的《绿鸡蛋和火腿》），参议院仍计划在次日下午1点进行程序性投票，这使得他的演讲自动终止——因此也不算真正的阻挠议事。
[科林斯支持共和党选民身份验证法案，但不会废除阻挠议事规则]
[图片2]
2025年12月17日，德克萨斯州参议员泰德·克鲁兹在华盛顿特区举行的监督听证会上。（Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images）
这就引出了”持续发言阻挠议事”——这正是大多数美国人对”阻挠议事”的普遍认知，源自弗兰克·卡普拉经典电影《史密斯先生到华盛顿》中吉米·斯图尔特饰演的角色。
大多数参议员通过迫使参议院进行两次间隔数天的终止辩论投票来阻挠法案，即使是最简单的事务也会被拉长近一周。但如果法案支持者拥有足够票数启动终止辩论，则阻挠议事将失败。
然而，如果一名或多名参议员以长时间演讲拖延立法进程，这种情况持续一段时间后，可能会绕过终止辩论所需的60票，直接进入投票环节。
支持通过《拯救美国法案》的共和党人认为，他们可以通过迫使法案反对者持续发言来规避终止辩论规则（即无需60票）。一旦反对者发言完毕，参议院即可对《拯救美国法案》进行简单多数投票——根本无需触碰60票门槛。
参议院第19条规则规定：”任何参议员在同一立法日对同一问题的辩论中，发言不得超过两次。”
听起来简单，对吗？每人每天最多发言两次。例如，民主党47名党团成员每人在周一发言两次，周二还需继续发言——直到耗尽所有发言机会。
但问题在于”同一问题“的定义。在参议院术语中，”问题”可以是法案本身、修正案或动议。此外，参议院通常会先考虑”一级修正案”，再考虑”二级修正案”，更不用说法案本身了。因此，按规则计算，每个参议员每天最多可对不同”问题”发言6次。
问题：这是否意味着民主党可以无限次发言？
另有玄机：规则中的”立法日”（legislative day）与自然日不同。若参议院休会而非休会（adjourn vs. recess），休会时间会重置立法日。例如，若参议院在周一休会，则周二开始新的立法日；若仅在周二 recess，则周一的立法日持续到周二。
这完全取决于参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩（R-S.D.）决定是”休会”还是”recess”。新立法日的创建会阻碍共和党人”持续发言阻挠议事”的策略。
民主党显然会推动参议院每日休会，但需观察支持”持续发言阻挠议事”的共和党人是否会反对图恩的每日休会请求。若参议院投票决定继续开会，周一的立法日将延续至周二。
小贴士：密切关注”休会”与”recess”的区别。若”持续发言阻挠议事”支持者试图阻止参议院休会，这可能预示共和党能否最终通过《拯救美国法案》。若相关测试投票失败且参议院休会，则《拯救美国法案》很可能胎死腹中。
我们尚未讨论多数党领袖的常规做法——在启动终止辩论时锁定法案框架。
通常，主持人会优先让参议院多数党领袖在发言席上首先发言。图恩及其前任常通过”填充修正案树”（fill the amendment tree）来控制议程：将法案比作”树干”，一级修正案为”树枝”，二级修正案为”细枝”。多数党领袖会在修正案树上添加不改变法案主题的”填充物”，然后启动终止辩论程序以阻止阻挠议事。
这一策略限制了修正案数量，阻止民主党提出争议性修正案。但若图恩不启动终止辩论，参议院将陷入无休止的修正案投票，这将在”持续发言阻挠议事”期间反复上演。
这就是为何图恩对通过”持续发言阻挠议事”策略持怀疑态度。
图恩表示：”这一过程比人们目前想象的更为复杂和危险。”
事实上，启动终止辩论的最大”好处”可能并非克服阻挠议事，而是通过控制修正案树来阻止民主党提出修正案。共和党人正准备应对民主党可能提出的各种修正案。
乔治·华盛顿大学政治学教授凯西·伯格特表示：”如果你认为民主党没有一堆修正案——比如质疑2020年大选结果、提及爱泼斯坦事件——准备在记录中迫使共和党人表态，那我有座桥卖给你。”
此外，迫使”持续发言阻挠议事”数天将导致参议院无法通过国土安全部拨款法案，更不用说确认俄克拉荷马州共和党参议员马克韦恩·穆林（Markwayne Mullin）担任国土安全部部长。他的确认听证会可能在下周三举行，但冗长的参议院辩论将阻碍其投票。
[杰弗里斯指责共和党人借法案之名实施”选民压制”]
[图片4]
2026年3月5日，俄克拉荷马州参议员马克韦恩·穆林在被提名为特朗普总统领导国土安全部的新候选人后，在国会大厦向记者发表讲话。（Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images）
尽管总统发出最后通牒，图恩周二实际上已否定了”持续发言阻挠议事”的可能性。
“你是否有风险站在特朗普总统对立面，拒绝使用’持续发言阻挠议事’并将参议院陷入数周僵局？”
图恩回应：”我们既没有足够票数启动’持续发言阻挠议事’，也无法在启动后维持这一状态。我理解总统希望解决这一问题的迫切心情，但这关乎数学——无论好坏，我必须清醒地认识到我们能实现什么。”
进一步追问：”但他是否明白这一点？”
图恩回答：”我们已向他传达了这一点。这关乎数学计算。无论如何，我必须清醒地认识到我们能实现什么。”
目前，似乎没有任何议事规则允许通过”持续发言阻挠议事”策略达成目标。
[点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用程序]
正如国会中的许多事务一样，这一切最终归结为一个问题：
正如图恩所言：”这关乎数学计算。”
查德·佩格拉姆目前担任福克斯新闻频道（FNC）首席国会记者。他于2007年9月加入该网络，常驻华盛顿特区。
Thune tells Trump that Republicans lack votes for talking filibuster strategy to pass SAVE America Act
By Chad Pergram
Fox News
Published March 11, 2026 1:22pm EDT
Chad Pergram reports on President Donald Trump’s push to pass the SAVE Act and Senate Republicans’ division over the talking filibuster in order to pass the legislation.
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
10 min
Passage of the SAVE America Act is of paramount importance to President Donald Trump and many congressional Republicans.
In his State of the Union 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. There’s now a different version of the legislation that’s in play. And, as is often the case, the hurdle is the Senate. Specifically, the Senate filibuster.
[image_1]
Upper Senate Park outside the U.S. Capitol is the scene of an “Only Citizens Vote” rally advocating passage of the SAVE Act, in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 10, 2025.(Kent Nishimura/Getty Images)
So some Republicans are trying to save the SAVE America Act.
It’s important to note that 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, Trump declared, “The Republicans MUST DO, with PASSION, and at the expense of everything else, THE SAVE AMERICA ACT.”
Again, the president didn’t wade into questions about overcoming a filibuster. But “MUST DO” and “at the expense of everything else” is a clear directive from the commander in chief.
That’s why there’s a big push by House Republicans and some GOP senators to alter the filibuster — or handle the Senate filibuster differently.
It’s 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 America Act are now condemning Senate Republicans if they don’t do something drastic to change the filibuster to pass the measure.
Some Senate Republicans are pushing for changes, or at the very least, advocating that Senate Republicans insist that Democrats conduct what they refer to as a “talking filibuster” and not hold up the legislation from the sidelines. It takes 60 votes to terminate a filibuster. The Senate 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 — meaning that senators finally just run out of gas, quit debating and voted.
So let’s explore what a filibuster is and isn’t and dive into what Republicans are talking about when they’re talking about a talking filibuster.
The Senate’s leading feature is unlimited debate. But, ironically, the “debate” which holds up most bills is not debate. It’s simply a group of 60 lawmakers signaling offstage to their leaders that they’ll 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 three to four days to process. So that inherently slows down the process — 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 there’s a time agreement green-lighted by all 100 members.
That’s why a “filibuster” is hard to define. You won’t find the word “filibuster” in the Senate’s rules. And since senators can just talk as long as they want, they might argue that suggesting they are “filibustering” is pejorative. They’re just exercising their Senate rights to speak on the floor.
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 Booker’s speech did was delay that confirmation vote by a few hours. But not much.
In October 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours. It was part of Cruz’s quest to defund Obamacare. But despite Cruz’s verbosity (and a recitation of “Green Eggs and Ham” by Dr. Seuss), the Senate was already locked in to take a procedural vote around 1 p.m. the next day. Preparations for that vote automatically ended Cruz’s speech. Thus, it truly wasn’t a filibuster either.
[COLLINS BOOSTS REPUBLICAN VOTER ID EFFORT, BUT WON’T SCRAP FILIBUSTER]
[image_2]
Sen. Ted Cruz during an oversight hearing in Washington, D.C., on Dec. 17, 2025.(Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg via Getty Images)
So, this brings us to the talking filibuster, which actually gums up the Senate gearboxes. A talking filibuster is what most Americans think of when they hear the term “filibuster.” That’s thanks to the iconic scenes with Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic, “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
Most senators filibuster by forcing the Senate to take two cloture votes — spread out over days — to handle even the simplest of matters. That elongates the process by close to a week. But if advocates of a given bill have the votes to break the filibuster via cloture, the gig is up.
However, what happens if a senator, or a group of senators, delays things with long speeches? That can only last for so long. And it could potentially truncate the Senate’s need to take any cloture vote, needing 60 yeas.
Republicans who advocate passage of the SAVE America Act believe they can get around cloture — and thus the need for 60 votes — by making opponents of the legislation talk. And talk. And talk.
And once they’re done talking, the Senate can vote — up or down — on the SAVE Act. Passage requires a simple majority. The Senate never even needs to tangle with 60.
Senate Rule XIX (19) states that “no senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day.”
Easy enough, right? Two speeches per day. You speak twice on Monday, then you have to wait until Tuesday? Democrats would eventually run out of juice after all 47 senators who caucus with Democrats have their say — twice.
But it’s not that simple. Note the part about two speeches per “question.”
Well, here’s a question. What constitutes a “question” in Senate parlance? A “question” could be the bill itself. It could be an amendment. It could be a motion. And just for the record, the Senate usually cycles through a “first-degree” amendment and then a “second-degree” amendment — to say nothing of the bill itself. So, if you’re scoring at home, that could be six (!) speeches per senator, per day, on any given “question.”
Questions?
But wait. There’s more.
Note that Rule XIX refers to a “legislative day.” A legislative day is not the same as a calendar day. One basic difference is if the Senate “adjourns” each night versus “recessing.” If the Senate “adjourns” its Monday session on calendar day Monday, then a new legislative day begins on Tuesday. However, the legislative day of “Monday” carries over to Tuesday if the Senate “recesses.”
It may be up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., whether the Senate “adjourns” or “recesses.” The creation of a new legislative day inhibits the GOP talking filibuster effort.
[SEN LEE DARES DEMOCRATS TO REVIVE TALKING FILIBUSTER OVER SAVE ACT, SLAMMING CRITICISM AS ‘PARANOID FANTASY’]
[image_3]
Senate Majority Leader John Thune arrives for a news conference after a policy luncheon on Capitol Hill, Feb. 3, 2026.(Mariam Zuhaib/AP Photo)
Democrats would obviously push for the Senate to adjourn each day. But watch to see if talking filibuster proponents object to Thune’s daily adjournment requests. If the Senate votes to stay in session, that forces the legislative day of Monday to bleed over to Tuesday.
Pro tip: Keep an eye on the adjournment vs. recess scenario. If a talking filibuster supporter tries to prevent the Senate from adjourning, that may signal whether the GOP has a shot at eventually passing the SAVE Act. If that test vote fails and the Senate adjourns for the day, the SAVE Act is likely dead in the water.
We haven’t even talked about a custom practiced by most Senate majority leaders to lock down the contours of a bill when they file cloture to end debate.
It’s typical for the presiding officer to recognize the Senate majority leader first on the floor for debate. So Thune and his predecessors often “fill” what’s called the “amendment tree.” The amendment tree dictates how many amendments are in play at any one time. Think of the underlying bill as a “trunk.” A “branch” is for the first amendment. A “sprig” from that branch is the second amendment. Majority leaders often load up the amendment tree with “fillers” that don’t change the subject of the bill. He then files cloture to break the filibuster.
That tactic curbs the universe of amendments. It blocks the other side from engineering controversial amendments to alter the bill. But if Thune doesn’t file cloture to end debate, then the Senate must consider amendment after amendment, repeatedly filling the tree and voting on those amendments. This would unfold during a talking filibuster, not when Thune is controlling the process by filing cloture and “filling the tree.”
This is why Thune is skeptical of a talking filibuster to pass the SAVE Act.
“This process is more complicated and risky than people are assuming at the moment,” said Thune.
In fact, the biggest “benefit” to filing cloture may not even be overcoming a filibuster, but blocking amendments via management of the tree. Republicans are bracing for amendments Democrats may offer.
“If you don’t think Democrats have a laundry list of amendments, talking about who won the 2020 election, talking about the Epstein files — if you don’t think they have a quiver full of these amendments that they’re ready to get Republican votes on the record, then I’ve got a bridge to sell you,” said George Washington University political science professor Casey Burgat.
Plus, forcing a talking filibuster for days precludes the Senate from passing a DHS funding bill. That’s to say nothing of confirming Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as Homeland Security secretary. His confirmation hearing likely comes next Wednesday, but a protracted Senate debate would block a confirmation vote from the floor.
[JEFFRIES ACCUSES REPUBLICANS OF ‘VOTER SUPPRESSION’ OVER BILL REQUIRING VOTER ID, PROOF OF CITIZENSHIP]
[image_4]
Sen. Markwayne Mullin addresses reporters at the U.S. Capitol after being tapped as President Donald Trump’s new nominee to lead DHS, March 5, 2026.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
Thune all but killed the talking filibuster maneuver on Tuesday — despite the president’s ultimatum.
“Do you run a risk of being on the wrong side of President Trump and your resistance to do this talking filibuster, tying the Senate in knots for weeks?” asked yours truly.
“We don’t have the votes either to proceed, get on a talking filibuster, nor to sustain one if we got on it,” replied Thune. “I understand the president’s got a passion to see this issue addressed.”
I followed up.
“Does he understand that, though?”
“Well, we’ve conveyed that to him,” answered Thune. “It’s about the math. And, for better or worse, I’m the one who has to be a clear-eyed realist about what we can achieve here.”
And there just doesn’t appear to be any parliamentary way to get there with the talking filibuster.
[CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP]
Like many things in Congress, it all boils down to one thing.
As Thune said, “It’s about the math.”
Chad Pergram currently serves as Chief Congressional Correspondent for FOX News Channel (FNC). He joined the network in September 2007 and is based out of Washington, D.C.
发表回复