众议院以218-213的投票结果通过了公民身份投票要求，但参议院仍是主要障碍
作者：查德·佩格拉姆（Chad Pergram）
福克斯新闻（Fox News）
发布时间：2026年3月9日美国东部时间晚上8:04
福克斯新闻首席国会记者查德·佩格拉姆报道，总统唐纳德·特朗普呼吁国会通过《拯救美国法案》（SAVE America Act），以及国土安全部（DHS）资金争议在《特别报道》中引发的讨论。
NEW 您现在可以收听福克斯新闻文章了！
收听本文
时长：9分钟
《拯救美国法案》（SAVE Act）的通过对特朗普总统和许多国会共和党人至关重要。
在他的国情咨文演讲中，总统恳请议员们“批准《拯救美国法案》，阻止非法移民和其他未经许可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投票需提供公民身份证明的计划。但正如常有的情况，障碍在于参议院，具体而言是参议院的阻挠议事规则（filibuster）。
因此，一些共和党人正试图挽救《拯救美国法案》。
特朗普推动国会在国情咨文中通过《拯救美国法案》；不干预关税问题
《拯救美国法案》已成为特朗普政府最新的国会焦点议题。（艾玛·伍德黑德/福克斯新闻数字版）
需要注意的是，特朗普总统在国情咨文中从未呼吁参议院修改阻挠议事规则。但上周在Truth Social（特朗普的社交平台）上，特朗普总统宣布：“共和党人必须充满激情地去做，不惜一切代价通过《拯救美国法案》。”
再次强调，总统并未直接涉及如何克服阻挠议事的问题，但“必须做”和“不惜一切代价”的表述是来自总司令的明确指示。
这就是为什么众议院共和党人和一些共和党参议员正大力推动修改阻挠议事规则，或至少主张参议院共和党人要求民主党进行所谓的“喋喋不休的阻挠议事”（talking filibuster），而不是在一旁作壁上观。
结束阻挠议事需要60票，参议院通过“invoke cloture”（启动终止阻挠程序）来实现。参议院首次使用终止阻挠程序是在1917年3月8日。在此之前，结束阻挠议事的唯一方法是“耗尽精力”——即参议员们最终耗尽辩论动力而放弃。
因此，我们将探讨什么是阻挠议事，什么不是，并深入解析共和党人所说的“喋喋不休的阻挠议事”究竟是什么。
参议院的主要特点是无限制辩论。但具有讽刺意味的是，阻碍大多数法案的“辩论”实际上并非真正的辩论，而是一群60名议员在幕后向他们的领导人发出信号，表示将阻挠法案通过。没有人需要走上议事厅发言，反对者只需要让多数党启动终止阻挠程序的投票，即便法案已获得60票支持。每次终止阻挠程序的投票需要占用3至4天的时间，这本质上减缓了立法进程，构成了事实上的阻挠。
例如，新泽西州民主党参议员科里·布克（Cory Booker）去年发表了创纪录的25小时演讲——但这并不一定是真正意义上的“阻挠议事”。（Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images）
那么，什么是“喋喋不休的阻挠议事”？是的，参议员有时会走上发言台，长时间发言。这正是参议院“无限制辩论”的规定。参议员可以在没有时间限制的情况下发言，除非所有100名议员达成时间协议。
这就是“阻挠议事”难以定义的原因——参议院规则中甚至找不到“filibuster”（阻挠议事）这个词。由于参议员可以自由发言，他们可能会争辩说，暗示他们在“阻挠议事”是带有贬义的，他们只是在行使参议院赋予的在议事厅发言的权利。
然而，真正的阻挠议事是一种拖延策略。例如，2026年3月，新泽西州民主党参议员科里·布克（Cory Booker）发表了创纪录的25小时8分钟演讲，但这在技术上并非阻挠议事。布克的演讲从3月31日晚上开始，持续到4月1日晚上。一旦布克结束发言，参议院就投票确认了马特·惠特克（Matt Whittaker）为北约大使。实际上，参议院原计划在4月1日就惠特克的提名进行投票，因此布克的演讲只是将该确认投票拖延了几个小时，并未真正构成阻挠。
2013年，德克萨斯州共和党参议员特德·克鲁兹（Ted Cruz）发言超过21小时
2013年，德克萨斯州共和党参议员特德·克鲁兹（Ted Cruz）为了阻止《平价医疗法案》（Obamacare）通过，在议事厅连续发言超过21小时。（Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images）
因此，这引出了“喋喋不休的阻挠议事”——这种阻挠实际上是通过冗长发言来阻碍参议院工作的齿轮运转。大多数美国人对“喋喋不休的阻挠议事”的印象，源于弗兰克·卡普拉经典电影《史密斯先生到华盛顿》（Mr. Smith Goes to Washington）中吉米·斯图尔特（Jimmy Stewart）的经典场景。
大多数参议员通过迫使参议院进行两次（间隔数天的）终止阻挠程序投票来实现“阻挠”，即使是最简单的事项也会被拖延近一周。但如果法案支持者有足够的票数通过终止阻挠程序（cloture），那么阻挠就会失败。
但是，如果一名或一群参议员通过长时间发言来拖延进程，这种拖延只能持续一段时间，可能会绕过参议院需要60票才能终止阻挠的规则。
支持通过《拯救美国法案》的共和党人认为，他们可以通过让法案反对者“喋喋不休”地发言，从而绕过终止阻挠程序的60票要求，一旦反对者停止发言，参议院就可以就《拯救美国法案》进行简单多数投票。
参议院规则第19条（Rule XIX）规定：“任何参议员在同一立法日内不得就同一问题发言超过两次。”
特朗普与图恩在选民ID问题上发生冲突，共和党内部对前进道路存在分歧
这似乎简单，对吧？每天两次发言。你在周一发言两次，然后必须等到周二？民主党人最终会耗尽精力，因为只有47名与民主党团结合作的参议员。
但事情并非如此简单。请注意“同一问题”的定义。
在参议院术语中，“问题”（question）可以指法案本身、修正案或动议。更重要的是，参议院通常会先进行“一级修正案”，然后是“二级修正案”。因此，如果按“记分”来说，每位参议员每天可以就同一“问题”进行最多6次发言（！）。
问题来了？
这可能取决于参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩（R-S.D.）是否决定参议院“休会”（adjourn）或“休会”（recess）。（Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images）
但还有更多细节：
- 立法日（Legislative Day）：与日历日不同。如果参议院每晚“休会”（adjourn），则新的立法日从下一天开始。如果参议院“休会”（recess），则周一的立法日会延续到周二。
- 图恩的抉择：参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩（R-S.D.）决定是“休会”还是“recess”（暂休）。新立法日的创建会阻碍共和党的努力。
- 喋喋不休的阻挠支持者的反对：如果图恩要求休会，支持“喋喋不休的阻挠”的共和党人可能会反对。如果参议院投票决定继续开会，这将迫使周一的立法日延续到周二。
特朗普与图恩在选民ID问题上发生冲突，共和党内部对前进道路存在分歧
提示：观察参议院是否休会或暂休，这将决定共和党是否有机会最终通过《拯救美国法案》。如果这一策略失败，法案很可能胎死腹中。
我们尚未讨论参议院多数党领袖约翰·图恩（R-S.D.）在启动终止阻挠程序时的常规操作。
参议院的一个惯例是，多数党领袖首先在议事厅进行辩论。因此，图恩及其前任常常“填充”所谓的“修正案树”（amendment tree）——修正案树规定了同时进行的修正案数量。可以将基本法案视为“主干”，“分支”是第一个修正案，“小枝”是第二个修正案。多数党领袖通常会在修正案树上添加“填充”修正案，这些修正案不会改变法案的主题。然后，他会启动终止阻挠程序的投票以突破阻挠。
这种策略限制了修正案的范围，阻止另一方提出具有争议的修正案来修改法案。但如果图恩不启动终止阻挠程序，参议院必须反复考虑修正案，不断填充修正案树并进行投票。这一情景发生在“喋喋不休的阻挠”期间，而非图恩通过启动终止阻挠程序控制进程的情况。
这就是为什么图恩对“喋喋不休的阻挠”持怀疑态度：
“这一过程比目前人们想象的更复杂、更具风险。”图恩表示。
事实上，启动终止阻挠程序的最大“好处”可能不仅仅是克服阻挠，还能通过管理修正案树来阻止修正案。共和党人正准备应对民主党可能提出的修正案。
“如果你认为民主党没有一长串可能提出的修正案——比如讨论2020年大选结果、爱泼斯坦事件（Epstein files）——以及他们准备让共和党人在记录上投票的各种修正案，那你可能需要买一座桥了。”乔治·华盛顿大学政治学教授凯西·伯加特（Casey Burgat）表示。
此外，连续数日的“喋喋不休的阻挠”会阻止参议院通过国土安全部（DHS）的资金法案，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了。
点击此处下载福克斯新闻应用程序
这就是为什么一些共和党人不愿推动“喋喋不休的阻挠”策略——尽管总统大力推动，但这可能会以牺牲《拯救美国法案》为代价。
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。
The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the ‘talking filibuster’ and the SAVE Act
House approved citizenship voting requirement 218-213, but Senate remains major hurdle
By Chad Pergram
Fox News
Published March 9, 2026 8:04pm EDT
Fox News chief congressional correspondent Chad Pergram reports on President Donald Trump calling on Congress to pass the SAVE America Act and the DHS funding battle on ‘Special Report.’
NEW You can now listen to Fox News articles!
Listen to this article
9 min
Passage of the SAVE Act is of paramount importance to President 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. 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.
TRUMP PUSHES CONGRESS TO PASS SAVE ACT DURING STATE OF THE UNION; NO MEDDLING WITH TARIFFS
The SAVE Act has become the Trump administration’s latest congressional cause célèbre.(Emma Woodhead/Fox News Digital)
It’s 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 didn’t 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.
That’s why there’s a big push by House Republicans and some GOP senators to alter the filibuster – or handle the filibuster differently in the Senate.
TRUMP VOWS BLOCK ON SIGNING NEW LAWS UNTIL SAVE AMERICA ACT PASSES SENATE
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 Act are now condemning Senate Republicans if they don’t 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 they’re referring 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 and quit debating.
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 to their leaders offstage 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 parts of three to four days to process. So that inherently slows down the process – and is a de facto filibuster.
Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., gave a record-breaking, 25-hour speech last year – however, it wasn’t necessarily a “filibuster” in the truest sense of the word.(Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
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, greenlit by all 100 members.
That’s why a “filibuster” is hard to define. You won’t find the word “filibuster” anywhere 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.
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 Booker’s speech did was delay that confirmation vote by a few hours. But not much.
FETTERMAN EXPECTS DHS SHUTDOWN AMID PARTISAN FUNDING FEUD, BREAKS WITH DEMOCRATS ON VOTER ID
In 2013, Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours, in his quest to defund Obamacare. But despite Cruz’s verbosity (and a recitation of “Green Eggs and Ham” by Dr. Suess), the Senate was already locked in to take a procedural vote around 1 pm the next day. That automatically ended Cruz’s speech. Thus, that truly wasn’t a filibuster either.
So, this brings us to the “talking” filibuster which actually gums up the Senate gearboxes. A talking filibuster is what most Americans think of, 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 by 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.
Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, held the floor for more than 21 hours back in 2013.(Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But 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 for passage of the SAVE Act believe they can get around cloture – and thus the need for 60 votes – by making opponents of the SAVE Act 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.
Senate Rule XIX (19) states that “no senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
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 with 47 senators who caucus with their party.
But it’s not that simple. Note the part about two speeches per “question.”
Well, what’s a “question,” in Senate parlance? That 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. So, if you’re scoring at home, that could be six (!) speeches per senator, per day, on any given “question.”
Questions?
It may be up to Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., whether the Senate “adjourns” or “recesses.”(Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
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, then a new legislative day begins on Tuesday. However, the legislative day of “Monday” carries over to Tuesday if the Senate “recesses.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
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 effort.
Moreover, talking filibuster proponents could object to a request by Thune to adjourn. If the Senate votes to stay in session, that forces the legislative day of Monday to bleed over to Tuesday.
SCHUMER ONCE BLOCKED TRUMP’S MOVE TO FILL THE NATION’S OIL RESERVES, NOW HE WANTS THEM OPENED
Pro tip: watch to see if the adjournment vs. recess scenario unfolds. If a talking filibuster supporter tries to prevent the Senate from adjourning, that could signal whether the GOP has a shot at eventually passing the SAVE Act. If that test fails, 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 a Senate custom 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 “filler” amendments, not changing the subject of the bill. He then files cloture to break the filibuster.
That tactic curbs the universe of amendments. That 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 scenario unfolds during a “talking” filibuster. Not when Thune is controlling the process by filing cloture and “filling the tree.”
Forcing a talking filibuster may well preclude the confirmation of Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., as Secretary of Homeland Security.(Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)
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.
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
That’s why there’s a reluctance by some Republicans to push the talking filibuster. And it could come at the expense of the SAVE Act – despite the president’s push.
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