IMG_0931

To Representative Congressman Brad Sherman and Gregory Meeks, please learn what a filibuster is before you continue to delay hearings with your BS! Don’t ask the question if you don’t want an answer!! Is it a filibuster when you ask a witness a question, and he tries to answer, and you scream Reclaiming my time? No, that’s not a filibuster. It’s a standard procedural tactic in congressional hearings (especially House committees) to manage limited speaking time. What “Reclaiming My Time” Actually Means • In hearings, committee members typically get a short, fixed amount of time (often 5 minutes) to question a witness. • When the member asks a question, they “yield” some of that time to the witness for an answer. The clock keeps running on the member’s allotment. • If the witness rambles, evades, compliments the member excessively, or otherwise wastes time, the member can interrupt by saying “Reclaiming my time” (or similar phrasing) to stop the witness and regain control of their remaining seconds. • This phrase has been used for decades in House proceedings but gained viral fame through Rep. Maxine Waters’ 2017 exchanges (e.g., with Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin). It’s essentially the questioner asserting control over their own limited time, not obstructing others. Witnesses’ answers count against the member’s clock, so this prevents stalling. How This Differs from a Filibuster A filibuster is a delaying tactic, primarily in the Senate, designed to prolong debate and prevent (or delay) a vote on legislation or nominations. • Classically, it involves extended speaking (a “talking filibuster”) to hold the floor. • Today, it’s often a “silent” or threatened filibuster, where senators signal opposition to force a 60-vote cloture threshold to end debate. • The goal is obstruction of the legislative process through prolonging discussion. “Reclaiming my time” is the opposite: It’s a tool to shorten or refocus an exchange within strict time limits, not drag things out. It’s common in committee oversight hearings, not floor debate on bills. In short: One is a member using their scarce questioning slot efficiently; the other is delaying broader Senate action. The scenarios are procedurally distinct.