Order Code RL32878
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
April 22, 2005
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Richard S. Beth
Specialist in the Legislative Process
Government and Finance Division
Betsy Palmer
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Libraryon Congress and the Legislative Process
Betsy Palmer
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
January 31, 2011
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RL32878
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Summary
Cloture is the only means by which the Senate can vote to limit debate on a
matter, and thereby
overcome a possible filibuster. It would be erroneous, however,
to assume that cases in which
cloture is sought are the same as those in which a
filibuster occurs. Cloture may be sought when
no filibuster is taking place, and
filibusters may occur without cloture being sought.
Until 1949, cloture could not be invoked on nominations, and before 1980 this
action was
attempted only twice. From the 96th Congress (1979-1980) through the
102nd (1991-1992), cloture
was never sought on more than three nominations in a
single Congress, but since then this level has been exceeded three times.
From 1949 through 2004, cloture was sought on 49 nominations, and invoked
on 21. Except in the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), most of the nominations involved
have been judicial. Fourteen of the 49 nominees were not confirmed, all of whom
were among the 18 on whom the Senate rejected cloture. Eleven of the 14
nominations not confirmed were considered during the 108th Congress (2003-2004).
Cloture has been sought on two nominations to the Supreme Court. In 1968, a
cloture vote on the motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Abe Fortas to be
Chief Justice failed. In 1971, when he was first appointed to the court, and again in
1986 when he was nominated to be Chief Justice, opponents of William H.
Rehnquist mounted a filibuster. Though the cloture vote in 1971 was unsuccessful,
Rehnquist was confirmed to the court; in 1986, the cloture vote was successful.
This report is to be updated after each Congress in which additional nominations
are subjected to cloture attempts. Filibusters and cloture are discussed more
generally in CRS Report RL30360, Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate. The
process by which the Senate considers nominations is discussed more generally in
CRS Report RL31980, Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations:
Committee and Floor Procedure, and CRS Report RL31948, Evolution of the
Senate’s Role in the Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History.
Contents
Cloture, Filibusters, and How They Differ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Frequency of Cloture Attempts on Nominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Historical Development of Cloture Attempts on Nominations . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Positions in Relation to Which Cloture Was Sought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
List of Tables
Table 1. Cloture Attempts and Action on Nominations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Table 2. Frequency and Success of Cloture Attempts on Nominations,
by Time Period, 1949-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 3. Cloture Action on Judicial and Executive Nominations,
by Time Period, 1967-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 4. Nominations Subjected to Cloture Attempts, 1968-2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Cloture, Filibusters, and How They Differ
Senate Rules place no general limits on how long consideration of a nomination
(or most other matters) may last. Owing to this lack of general time limits,
opponents of a nomination may be able to use extended debate or other delaying
actions to prevent a final vote from occurring. Although a voting majority of
Senators may be prepared to vote for a nominee, the nomination cannot be confirmed
as long as other Senators, presumably a voting minority, are able to prevent the vote
from occurring. The use of debate and procedural actions for the purpose of
preventing or delaying a vote is a filibuster.
The motion for cloture is the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to
place time limits on its consideration of a matter. It is, therefore, the Senate’s most
usual means of attempting to overcome a filibuster. When the Senate adopts a
cloture motion on a matter, known as “invoking cloture,” further consideration of the
matter is limited to 30 hours.1 By invoking cloture, the Senate may be able to ensure
that a question will ultimately come to a vote, and can be decided by a voting
majority.
The cloture rule permits Senators to move for cloture repeatedly, if necessary.
The Senate, however, can impose the constraints of cloture only by a super-majority
vote. For most matters, including nominations, three-fifths of the full Senate, or 60
votes, is required to invoke cloture. As a result, even if a majority of Senators
support a nomination, opponents may still be able to prevent a vote on it by defeating
any attempt to invoke cloture. Although the nomination itself can always be
approved by a simple majority of Senators present and voting, the support of a supermajority may be required to limit consideration and enable the Senate to reach a vote.
While cloture affords the Senate a means of overcoming a filibuster, it is
erroneous to assume that cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as
those in which a filibuster occurs. Cloture may be sought when no filibuster is taking
place, and filibusters may occur without cloture being sought. The reason is that
cloture is sought by supporters of a matter; while filibusters are conducted by its
opponents. Leaders of the majority party, or other supporters, may move for cloture
even when opponents do not assert that they are attempting a filibuster, or when no
1
Senate Rule XXII, paragraph 2. U.S. Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration,
Senate Manual, Containing the Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the
Business of the United States Senate, S.Doc. 107-1, 107th Cong., 1st sess., prepared by
Andrea LaRue under the direction of Kennie Gill, Staff Director (Washington: GPO, 2002),
sec. 22.2. During the 30 hours, no single Senator, other than the party floor leaders and the
managers of the debate, may occupy more than one hour in debate.
CRS-2
extended debate or delaying actions have actually occurred. They may do so in
response to a threat or perceived threat of a filibuster, or simply in an effort to speed
action.
It is also possible for opponents of a matter to engage in a filibuster without
supporters deciding to move for cloture. Supporters may refrain either because they
think they lack the votes to obtain cloture, because they believe they can overcome
any delaying actions and reach a vote without cloture, or because they hope to resolve
the matter in dispute by some negotiated accommodation. This situation may be less
common today, but does seem to have occurred in relation to nominations in earlier
times.
If cloture is not an automatic indicator of a filibuster, neither is any other
specific procedural action. A filibuster is a matter of intent; any course of action by
opponents of a matter may be a filibuster if it is undertaken with the purpose of
blocking or delaying a vote. Yet any of the procedural actions that might be used to
delay or block a vote might also be used for other purposes. As a result, filibusters
cannot simply be identified by explicit or uniform criteria, and there is no commonly
accepted set of criteria for doing so. Instead, determining whether a filibuster is
occurring in any specific case typically requires a degree of subjective judgment.
For these reasons, it would be a misuse of the following data, identifying
nominations on which cloture was sought, to treat them as identifying nominations
subjected to filibuster. It would equally be a misinterpretation to assume that all
nominations on which cloture was not sought were not filibustered (especially for
periods before cloture could be moved on nominations, as described in the next
section). This report provides data only on nominations on which cloture motions
were offered. It is not to be taken as providing systematic data on nominations that
were or were not filibustered. It would not be feasible to develop a list of measures
filibustered unless a commonly accepted single standard for identifying what
constitutes filibustering could first be established.2 At most, the data presented here
may be regarded as identifying some potentially likely cases in which a filibuster (by
some appropriate definition) may have occurred.
Frequency of Cloture Attempts on Nominations
The Senate first adopted a cloture rule in 1917. Until 1949, cloture could be
moved only on legislative measures, and nominations could not be subjected to
cloture attempts.3 From 1949 through 2004 (81st-108th Congresses), cloture was
2
These questions of method are discussed in more detail in Richard S. Beth, “What We
Don’t Know About Filibusters,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western
Political Science Association, Portland, Ore., March 1995 (available from the author).
3
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Cloture Rule:
Limitation of Debate in the Congress of the United States and Legislative History of
Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the United States Senate (Cloture Rule),
S.Print 99-95, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 99th
Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 17, 21, 38-39, 105-112.
CRS-3
sought on 49 nominations.4 Table 4, following the text, identifies the 49
nominations, the number of separate cloture motions filed on each, the ultimate
outcome of the cloture attempt in each case, and the disposition of each nomination.
As shown by the summary in Table 1, the Senate invoked cloture on 21 of these 49
nominations. On another 10 nominations, cloture motions were offered, but never
came to a vote. On the remaining 18 nominations, the Senate voted against imposing
cloture.
Table 1. Cloture Attempts and Action on Nominations
Final
Cloture
Action
Action on Nomination
Total
Confirmed
Not
confirmed
Invoked
21
0
21
No vote
10
0
10
Rejected
4
14
18
Total
35
14
49
Source: Table 3.
Of the 49 nominations on which cloture was sought, 35 ultimately won
confirmation. Of those 35 nominations, the Senate invoked cloture on 21, the Senate
did not vote on the cloture petitions in 10 cases, and in four cases the nominations
were confirmed despite the Senate rejecting cloture on the nomination. In 14 cases,
11 of them from the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the Senate refused to invoke cloture
and the nominations were unsuccessful. In earlier Congresses, only three of the 35
nominations on which cloture was sought were ultimately rejected. These were
!
!
!
Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States in 1968;
Sam Brown to be Ambassador during his tenure as Head of
Delegation to the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe
(CSCE) in 1994; and
Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General of the United States in
1995.
Historical Development of Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Even after Senate rules began to permit cloture on nominations in 1949, cloture
was sought on none until 1968, when a motion to proceed to consider the nomination
of Supreme Court Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice was debated at
length. After the Senate rejected cloture on the motion to proceed, 45-43, President
4
For these purposes, five State Department nominations considered concurrently are
counted as one, and the simultaneous nomination of a single individual to two positions is
counted as one.
CRS-4
Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew the nomination at Fortas’ request. In 1969 and 1970,
the nominations of Clement F. Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell to the Supreme
Court were defeated after lengthy debate, but no cloture motion was filed on either.
When the Senate considered the nomination to the Supreme Court of William H.
Rehnquist late in the 1971 session, however, cloture was quickly sought. Though the
Senate did not invoke cloture (52-42), the nomination was subsequently confirmed.
In 1975, the majority required for invoking cloture on most matters, including
nominations, was changed from two-thirds of Senators present and voting to threefifths of the full membership of the Senate (normally 60).5 This change in the rules
generally meant that the threshold for invoking cloture was lowered; if all 100
Senators participated in the vote, the previous rule required the votes of 67 to invoke
cloture, the new rule required 60 votes, regardless of how many Senators
participated.
Cloture was sought on no other nomination until 1980. That occurrence was the
first in which cloture was sought on a nomination to an executive branch position,
that of William G. Lubbers to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations
Board. Cloture was invoked, and the nomination was confirmed.
Table 2. Frequency and Success of Cloture Attempts
on Nominations, by Time Period, 1949-2004
Nominations on which cloture was:
Moved
Congresses and (years)
Invoked
Number
Average per
Congress
Number
Percent of
moved
81st-89th (1949-1966)
0
0
0
—
90th-102nd (1967-1992)
12
0.9
9
75%
103rd-108th (1993-2004)
37
6.2
12
32%
As Table 2 illustrates, the frequency with which cloture has been sought on
nominations has increased in recent years (a development that reflects the trend in the
overall frequency of cloture motions). Before the 103rd Congress, cloture was sought
on as many as three nominations only in the 96th Congress (1979-1980) and the 99th
Congress (1985-1986). Since then, however, this level has been exceeded three
times. Cloture was sought on 12 nominations in the 103rd Congress (1993-1994),
five in the 107th (2001-2002), and 14 in the 108th (2003-2004). These three
Congresses were also the only ones since 1981 in which the presidency, Senate, and
House were all controlled by the same political party.6 In addition, the 103rd and
5
6
Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Cloture Rule, pp. 30-32, 53-54, 119-121.
The Republican Party lost control of the Senate during the 1st session of the 107th
Congress.
CRS-5
107th Congresses were each the first of a new presidency, so that the number of
nominations to be considered was presumably especially large.
Table 2 also indicates that, as the frequency of cloture attempts on nominations
has increased, the frequency of their success has tended to decrease. This
relationship appears to suggest that cloture is now being sought more often in cases
when it is unlikely to be invoked. This shift was evident especially in the 103rd
Congress, when cloture was successfully invoked on only four of the 12 nominations
where attempted, and in the 108th Congress, when it was invoked on none of the 14
nominations on which it was attempted. In other Congresses, the proportion of
cloture attempts that succeeded has generally been much higher.
In the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the pattern of Senate action on nominations
on which cloture was sought displayed several distinctive features. First, the
maximum number of cloture motions offered on each nomination was higher than
ever before. In earlier Congresses, as many as three cloture motions had been offered
on a single nomination only on three occasions (two in 1980 and one in 1994). In the
108th Congress, by contrast, one nomination was subjected to seven cloture motions
and another to four. Second, when the Senate sought cloture on a nomination but
was unable to confirm it, the Senate in the 108th Congress retained the nomination
on its calendar until final adjournment. In earlier Congresses, nominations that were
not confirmed after cloture attempts were typically either withdrawn or returned to
the President. Both these shifts may represent indications of an increased intensity
with which supporters of these nominations were attempting to secure Senate votes
on them.
Table 3. Cloture Action on Judicial and Executive Nominations,
by Time Period, 1967-2004
Judicial
Congresses
and (years)
Cloture
Invoked
Executive
Cloture Not
Invoked
Cloture
Invoked
Cloture Not
Invoked
90th-102nd (1967-1992)
5
3a
4
0
103rd (1993-1994)
1
1
3
7a
104th-107th (1995-2002)
5
2
3
1a
108th (2003-2004)
0
12 b
0
2a
11
18
10
Total
10
Source: Table 4.
Notes:
a.
On one nomination in each of these groups, cloture was ultimately rejected and the nominee was
not confirmed.
b.
On 10 nominations in this group, cloture was ultimately rejected and the nominee was not
confirmed.
CRS-6
Positions in Relation to Which Cloture Was Sought
Most of the nominations on which cloture has been attempted have been to
clearly secondary or subordinate positions. Only three have been to the Supreme
Court, and two to offices at the level of the President’s Cabinet. In general, most
nominations on which cloture has been sought have been to positions on the federal
bench. This circumstance perhaps reflects the Senate’s traditional inclination to
permit the President generally wide latitude in selecting officials to serve under him
in executive branch positions. Only in the 103rd Congress was cloture sought chiefly
on nominations to positions in the executive branch.
Of the 12 nominations on which cloture action occurred during the 103rd
Congress, 10 were for executive branch positions. Except in that Congress, most
nominations on which cloture has been sought have been to the federal courts. Table
3 summarizes the outcomes of cloture action on executive and judicial nominations,
broken down into four periods that display distinctive patterns.
CRS-7
Table 4. Nominations Subjected to Cloture Attempts, 1968-2004
Congress
and Year
Nominee
Position
Cloture
Motions
Filed
Final
Outcome
of Cloture
Attempt
Disposition
of
Nomination
90th, 1968
Abe Fortas
Chief Justice
1
rejected
withdrawn
92nd, 1971
William H. Rehnquist
Associate Justice
2
rejected
confirmed
96th, 1980
William A. Lubbers
General Counsel,
National Labor
Relations Board
3
invoked
confirmed
96th, 1980
Don Zimmerman
Member, National
Labor Relations
Board
3
invoked
confirmed
96th, 1980
Stephen G. Breyer
Circuit Judge
2
invoked
confirmed
98th, 1984
J. Harvie Wilkinson
Circuit Judge
2
invoked
confirmed
99th, 1986
Sidney A. Fitzwater
District Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
99th, 1986
Daniel A. Manion
Circuit Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
99th, 1986
William H. Rehnquist
Chief Justice
1
invoked
confirmed
100th, 1987
Melissa Wells
Ambassador
1
invoked
confirmed
100th, 1987
C. William Verity
Secretary of
Commerce
1
invoked
confirmed
102nd, 1992
Edward Earl Carnes,
Jr.
Circuit Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
103rd, 1993
Walter Dellinger
Assistant Attorney
General
2
rejected
confirmed
103rd, 1993
five nominations a
State Department
2
rejected
confirmed
103rd, 1993
Janet Napolitano
U.S. Attorney
1
invoked
confirmed
103rd, 1994
M. Larry Lawrence
Ambassador
1
fell b
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Rosemary Barkett
Circuit Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Sam Brown
Ambassador
3
rejected
returned to
president
103rd, 1994
Derek Shearer
Ambassador
2
invoked
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Ricki Tigert
Board Member and
Chair, Federal
Deposit Insurance
Corporation c
2
invoked
confirmed
103rd, 1994
H. Lee Sarokin
Circuit Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
CRS-8
Cloture
Motions
Filed
Final
Outcome
of Cloture
Attempt
Disposition
of
Nomination
Air Force Lieutenant
General (retired)
1
withdrawn
confirmed
Claude Bolton, Jr.
Air Force Brigadier
General
1
vitiated d
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Edward P. Barry, Jr.
Air Force Lieutenant
General (retired)
1
vitiated d
confirmed
104th, 1995
Henry Foster
Surgeon General
2
rejected
no final vote
105th, 1997
Joel I. Klein
Assistant Attorney
General
1
invoked
confirmed
105th, 1998
David Satcher
Surgeon General
1
invoked
confirmed
106th, 1999
Brian Theadore
Stewart
District Judge
1
rejected
confirmed
106th, 2000
Marsha L. Berzon
Circuit Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
106th, 2000
Richard A. Paez
Circuit Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
107th, 2002
Lavenski R. Smith
Circuit Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
107th, 2002
Richard R. Clifton
Circuit Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
107th, 2002
Richard H. Carmona
Surgeon General
1
invoked
confirmed
107th, 2002
Julia Smith Gibbons
Circuit Judge
1
invoked
confirmed
107th, 2002
Dennis W. Shedd
Circuit Judge
1
vitiated d
confirmed
108th, 2003
Victor J. Wolski
Judge, Court of
Claims
1
vitiated d
confirmed
108th, 2003
Miguel A. Estrada
Circuit Judge
7
rejected
withdrawn
108th, 2003
Michael O. Leavitt
Administrator,
Environmental
Protection Agency c
1
withdrawn
confirmed
108th, 2003
Charles W.
Pickering, Sr.
Circuit Judge
1
rejected
no final vote
108th, 2003
William H. Pryor, Jr.
Circuit Judge
2
rejected
no final vote
108th, 2003
Priscilla Richman
Owen
Circuit Judge
4
rejected
no final vote
108th, 2003
Carolyn B. Kuhl
Circuit Judge
2
rejected
no final vote
108th, 2003
Janice R. Brown
Circuit Judge
1
rejected
no final vote
Congress
and Year
Nominee
103rd, 1994
Buster Glosson
103rd, 1994
Position
CRS-9
Final
Outcome
of Cloture
Attempt
Disposition
of
Nomination
2
rejected
no final vote
District Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
William Gerry Myers
III
Circuit Judge
1
rejected
no final vote
108th, 2004
David W. McKeague
Circuit Judge
1
rejected
no final vote
108th, 2004
Henry W. Saad
Circuit Judge
1
rejected
no final vote
108th, 2004
Richard A. Griffin
Circuit Judge
1
rejected
no final vote
Congress
and Year
Nominee
108th, 2003
Thomas C. Dorr
Undersecretary of
Agriculture for Rural
Development and
Board Member,
Commodity Credit
Corporation c
108th, 2004
Marcia G. Cooke
108th, 2004
Position
Cloture
Motions
Filed
Sources: Compilations by CRS and Senate Library; Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress; U.S.
Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Cloture Rule, committee print 99-95, 99th Cong., 1st
sess. (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 44-70, 78-85; Congressional Record (Daily Digest); and Congressional Quarterly
Almanac for 1986, 1987, 1992, 1995, 1999.
Notes: Executive branch nominations in roman; Judicial nominations in italic. Final outcome of cloture attempt is
shaded when cloture was not invoked. Disposition of nomination is shaded when the nominee was not confirmed.
a. These five nominations to various positions in the State Department received consideration and cloture action
concurrently, and are counted as one case in the table.
b. Cloture motion became moot and received no action.
c. The individual was nominated simultaneously for the two positions specified, and cloture action took place on each
nomination in turn. The table counts all actions on one nominee as one case.
d. Senate unanimously consented to treat the cloture motion as having no effect.in four of the nine
Congresses since then a dozen or more nominations were subjected to cloture attempts.
From 1949 through 2010, cloture was sought on 89 nominations, and invoked on 41. The Senate
voted to reject cloture on 22 of the remaining 48 nominations, and on the final 26 nominations no
cloture motion received a vote. Eighteen of the 89 nominees failed of confirmation, and 11 of
these 18 were considered during the 108th Congress (2003-2004). In the 103rd Congress (19931994), the 109th Congress (2005-2006), and the 111th Congress (2009-2010) most of the cloture
attempts were to executive branch nominations, but in all other Congresses nominations to the
federal bench predominated.
Cloture has been sought on four nominations to the Supreme Court. In 1968, a cloture vote on the
motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice failed. In 1971,
when he was first appointed to the court, and again in 1986 when he was nominated to be Chief
Justice, opponents of William H. Rehnquist mounted a filibuster. Though the cloture vote in 1971
was unsuccessful, Rehnquist was confirmed to the court; in 1986, the cloture vote was successful.
In 2006, the Senate successfully invoked cloture on the nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to be
an associate justice on the Supreme Court.
This report is to be updated after each Congress in which additional nominations are subjected to
cloture attempts. Filibusters and cloture are discussed more generally in CRS Report RL30360,
Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate, by Richard S. Beth, Valerie Heitshusen, and Betsy Palmer.
The process by which the Senate considers nominations is discussed more generally in CRS
Report RL31980, Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor
Procedure, by Elizabeth Rybicki, and CRS Report RL31948, Evolution of the Senate’s Role in the
Nomination and Confirmation Process: A Brief History, by Betsy Palmer.
Congressional Research Service
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Contents
Cloture, Filibusters, and How They Differ ...................................................................................1
Frequency of Cloture Attempts on Nominations ..........................................................................2
Historical Development of Cloture Attempts on Nominations......................................................3
Positions in Relation to Which Cloture Was Sought.....................................................................5
Tables
Table 1. Cloture Attempts and Action on Nominations.................................................................3
Table 2. Frequency and Success of Cloture Attempts on Nominations, by Time Period,
1949-2008................................................................................................................................4
Table 3. Cloture Action on Judicial and Executive Nominations, by Time Period, 19672008 ........................................................................................................................................5
Table 4. Nominations Subjected to Cloture Attempts, 1968-2010.................................................6
Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 10
Congressional Research Service
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Cloture, Filibusters, and How They Differ
Senate Rules place no general limits on how long consideration of a nomination (or most other
matters) may last. Owing to this lack of general time limits, opponents of a nomination may be
able to use extended debate or other delaying actions to prevent a final vote from occurring.
Although a voting majority of Senators may be prepared to vote for a nominee, the nomination
cannot be confirmed as long as other Senators, presumably a voting minority, are able to prevent
the vote from occurring. The use of debate and procedural actions for the purpose of preventing
or delaying a vote is a filibuster.
The motion for cloture is the only procedure by which the Senate can vote to place time limits on
its consideration of a matter. It is, therefore, the Senate’s most usual means of attempting to
overcome a filibuster. When the Senate adopts a cloture motion on a matter, known as “invoking
cloture,” further consideration of the matter is limited to 30 hours.1 By invoking cloture, the
Senate may be able to ensure that a question will ultimately come to a vote, and can be decided
by a voting majority.
The cloture rule permits Senators to move for cloture repeatedly, if necessary. The Senate,
however, can impose the constraints of cloture only by a super-majority vote. For most matters,
including nominations, three-fifths of the full Senate, normally 60 votes, is required to invoke
cloture. As a result, even if a majority of Senators support a nomination, opponents may still be
able to prevent a vote on it by defeating any attempt to invoke cloture. Although the nomination
itself can always be approved by a simple majority of Senators present and voting, the support of
a super-majority may be required to limit consideration and enable the Senate to reach a vote.
While cloture affords the Senate a means of overcoming a filibuster, it is erroneous to assume that
cases in which cloture is sought are always the same as those in which a filibuster occurs. Cloture
may be sought when no filibuster is taking place, and filibusters may occur without cloture being
sought. The reason is that cloture is sought by supporters of a matter, while filibusters are
conducted by its opponents. Leaders of the majority party, or other supporters, may move for
cloture even when opponents do not assert that they are attempting a filibuster, or when no
extended debate or delaying actions have actually occurred. They may do so in response to a
threat or perceived threat of a filibuster, or simply in an effort to speed action.
It is also possible for opponents of a matter to engage in a filibuster without supporters deciding
to move for cloture. Supporters may refrain either because they think they lack the votes to obtain
cloture, because they believe they can overcome any delaying actions and reach a vote without
cloture, or because they hope to resolve the matter in dispute by some negotiated accommodation.
This situation may be less common today, but does seem to have occurred in relation to
nominations in earlier times.
If cloture is not an automatic indicator of a filibuster, neither is any other specific procedural
action. A filibuster is a matter of intent; any course of action by opponents of a matter may be a
1
Senate Rule XXII, paragraph 2. U.S. Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Manual, Containing the
Standing Rules, Orders, Laws, and Resolutions Affecting the Business of the United States Senate, S.Doc. 110-1, 110th
Cong., 2nd sess., prepared by Matthew McGowan under the direction of Howard Gantman, Staff Director (Washington:
GPO, 2008), sec. 22.2. During the 30 hours, no single Senator, other than the party floor leaders and the managers of
the debate, may occupy more than one hour in debate.
Congressional Research Service
1
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
filibuster if it is undertaken with the purpose of blocking or delaying a vote. Yet any of the
procedural actions that might be used to delay or block a vote might also be used for other
purposes. As a result, filibusters cannot simply be identified by explicit or uniform criteria, and
there is no commonly accepted set of criteria for doing so. Instead, determining whether a
filibuster is occurring in any specific case typically requires a degree of subjective judgment.
For these reasons, it would be a misuse of the following data, identifying nominations on which
cloture was sought, to treat them as identifying nominations subjected to filibuster. It would
equally be a misinterpretation to assume that all nominations on which cloture was not sought
were not filibustered (especially for periods before 1949, when it was first made possible to move
cloture on nominations, as described in the next section). This report provides data only on
nominations on which cloture motions were offered. It is not to be taken as providing systematic
data on nominations that were or were not filibustered. It would not be feasible to develop a list
of measures filibustered unless a commonly accepted single standard for identifying what
constitutes filibustering could first be established.2 At most, the data presented here may be
regarded as identifying some potentially likely cases in which a filibuster (by some appropriate
definition) may have occurred.
Frequency of Cloture Attempts on Nominations
The Senate first adopted a cloture rule in 1917. Until 1949, cloture could be moved only on
legislative measures, and nominations could not be subjected to cloture attempts.3 From 1949
through 2010 (81st-111th Congresses), cloture was sought on 89 nominations. 4 Table 4, following
the text of this report, identifies the 89 nominations, the number of separate cloture motions filed
on each, the ultimate outcome of the cloture attempt in each case, and the disposition of each
nomination. As shown by the summary in Table 1, the Senate invoked cloture on 41 of these 89
nominations. On another 26 nominations, cloture motions were offered, but never came to a vote,
because the motions fell, were withdrawn or vitiated. On the remaining 22 nominations, the
Senate voted against imposing cloture. 5
2
These questions of method are discussed in more detail in Richard S. Beth, “What We Don’t Know About
Filibusters,” paper presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Portland, Ore., March
1995 (available from the author).
3
U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Cloture Rule: Limitation of Debate in the
Congress of the United States and Legislative History of Paragraph 2 of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the United
States Senate (Cloture Rule), S.Print 99-95, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, 99th
Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 17, 21, 38-39, 105-112.
4
For these purposes, five State Department nominations considered concurrently are counted as one, and each instance
in which a single individual was simultaneously nominated to two positions is counted as one.
5
The data include all cloture action in relation to a nomination, whether the motion is offered to close debate on the
nomination itself or on a debatable motion to proceed to its consideration (which does not occur in practice after 1980).
Congressional Research Service
2
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Table 1. Cloture Attempts and Action on Nominations
Action on Nomination
Confirmed
Not confirmed
Total
Invoked
41
0
41
Rejected
5
17
22
Withdrawn/Vitiated/Fella
25
1
26
Total
71
18
89
Cloture Action
Source: Table 4.
a.
This category only includes situations in which there was no vote on any cloture motion.
Of the 89 nominations on which cloture was sought, 71 ultimately won confirmation. The 71
nominations confirmed include all 41 on which the Senate invoked cloture and 25 of those on
which the Senate did not vote on the cloture motions, as well as five on which the Senate rejected
cloture. The remaining 18 nominations were not confirmed, either because the Senate voted to
reject cloture or because they did not receive a final vote. On 17 of these nominations, 11 of
which occurred in the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the Senate rejected cloture. In the final case,
in the 109th Congress (2006-2007), the cloture motion was withdrawn and the nomination was not
confirmed.
Before the 108th Congress, only three of the 35 nominations on which cloture was sought were
ultimately rejected. These were
•
Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice of the United States in 1968;
•
Sam Brown to be Ambassador during his tenure as Head of Delegation to the
Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) in 1994; and
•
Dr. Henry Foster to be Surgeon General of the United States in 1995.
Historical Development of Cloture Attempts on
Nominations
Even after Senate rules began to permit cloture on nominations in 1949, cloture was sought on
none until 1968, when a motion to proceed to consider the nomination of Supreme Court
Associate Justice Abe Fortas to be Chief Justice was debated at length. After the Senate rejected
cloture on the motion to proceed, 45-43, President Lyndon B. Johnson withdrew the nomination
at Fortas’ request. In 1969 and 1970, the nominations of Clement F. Haynsworth and G. Harrold
Carswell to the Supreme Court were defeated after lengthy debate, but no cloture motion was
filed on either. When the Senate considered the nomination to the Supreme Court of William H.
Rehnquist late in the 1971 session, however, cloture was quickly sought. Though the Senate did
not invoke cloture (52-42), the nomination was subsequently confirmed.
In 1975, the majority required for invoking cloture on most matters, including nominations, was
changed from two-thirds of Senators present and voting to three-fifths of the full membership of
Congressional Research Service
3
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
the Senate (60 votes, assuming no more than one vacancy).6 This change in the rules generally
meant that the threshold for invoking cloture was lowered; if all 100 Senators participated in the
vote, the previous rule required the votes of 67 to invoke cloture, the new rule normally required
60 votes, regardless of how many Senators participated.
Cloture was sought on no other nomination until 1980. That occurrence was the first in which
cloture was sought on a nomination to an executive branch position, that of William G. Lubbers to
be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board. Cloture was invoked, and the
nomination was confirmed.
Table 2. Frequency and Success of Cloture Attempts on Nominations,
by Time Period, 1949-2008
Nominations on which cloture was:
Moved
Congresses and (years)
Invoked
Number
Average per Congress
Number
Percent of moved
81st-89th (1949-1966)
0
0
0
—
90th-102nd (1967-1992)
12
0.9
9
75%
103rd-111th
77
8.6
32
42%
(1993-2010)
Source: Table 4.
As Table 2 illustrates, the frequency with which nominations have been subjected to cloture
attempts has increased in recent years (a development that reflects the trend in the overall
frequency of cloture motions). Before the 103rd Congress, cloture was sought on as many as three
nominations only in the 96th Congress (1979-1980) and the 99th Congress (1985-1986). Since
then, however, this level has been exceeded five times. Cloture was sought on 12 nominations in
the 103rd Congress (1993-1994), five in the 107th (2001-2002), 14 in the 108th (2003-2004), 18 in
the 109th Congress (2005-2006) and 21 in the 111th Congress (2009-2010). These five Congresses
were also the only ones since 1981 in which the presidency, Senate, and House were all
controlled by the same political party.7 In addition, the 103rd, 107th and 111th Congresses were
each the first of a new presidential administration, so that the number of nominations to be
considered was presumably large.
Table 2 also indicates that, although the frequency of nominations with cloture attempts has
increased, the frequency with which cloture has succeeded has decreased. This pattern appears to
suggest that in recent Congresses, cloture has been sought even when it is unlikely to be invoked.
This shift was evident especially in the 103rd Congress, when cloture was successfully invoked on
only four of the 12 nominations where attempted, and in the 108th Congress, when it was invoked
on none of the 14 nominations on which it was attempted. In other Congresses, the proportion of
nominations with cloture attempts on which cloture succeeded has generally been much higher.
In the 108th Congress (2003-2004), the pattern of Senate action on nominations on which cloture
was sought displayed several distinctive features. First, the maximum number of cloture motions
offered on any nomination was higher than in any other Congress. In other Congresses, as many
6
7
Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Cloture Rule, pp. 30-32, 53-54, 119-121.
The Republican Party lost control of the Senate during the 1st session of the 107th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
4
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
as three cloture motions had been offered on a single nomination only on three occasions (two in
1980 and one in 1994). In the entire 111th Congress, cloture was not attempted more than once on
any nomination on which it was sought. In the 108th Congress, by contrast, one nomination was
subjected to seven cloture motions and another to four.
Second, when the Senate sought cloture on a nomination but was unable to confirm it, the Senate
in the 108th Congress retained the nomination on its calendar until final adjournment. In earlier
Congresses, nominations that were not confirmed after cloture attempts were typically either
withdrawn or returned to the President. Both these shifts may represent indications of an
increased intensity with which supporters of these nominations were attempting to secure Senate
votes on them.
Table 3. Cloture Action on Judicial and Executive Nominations, by Time Period,
1967-2008
Judicial
Executive
Cloture
Invoked
Cloture
Rejected
Cloture Fell,
Vitiated or
Withdrawna
Cloture
Invoked
Cloture
Rejected
Cloture Fell,
Vitiated or
Withdrawna
90th-102nd (1967-1992)
5
2
1
4
0
0
103rd
1
0
1
3
3
4
5
1
1
3
1
0
(2003-2004)
0
10
2
0
1
1
109th (2005-2006)
6
0
0
3
2
7
110th (2007-2008)
1
0
0
0
0
0
111th (2009-2010)
2
0
3
8
2
6
Total
20
13
8
21
9
18
Congresses
and (years)
(1993-1994)
104th-107th
108th
(1995-2002)
Source: Table 4.
Notes: All nominations on which cloture was invoked were confirmed. Five of the nominations for which
cloture was rejected were confirmed. All but one of the nominations on which the cloture motion fell, was
vitiated, or was withdrawn were ultimately confirmed. See Table 1.
a.
This category includes only situations in which there was no vote on any cloture motion.
Positions in Relation to Which Cloture Was Sought
Few of the nominations on which cloture has been attempted have been to the Supreme Court or
Cabinet-level positions. Only four have been to the Supreme Court, and five to offices at the level
of the President’s Cabinet. Until the 111th Congress, a majority of the nominations on which
cloture was sought had been to positions on the federal bench. This circumstance perhaps
reflected the Senate’s traditional inclination to permit the President generally wide latitude in
selecting officials to serve under him in executive branch positions.
Only in the 103rd, 109th and 111th Congresses was cloture sought in more cases of nominations to
positions in the executive branch than the judicial branch. Of the 12 nominations on which cloture
action occurred during the 103rd Congress, 10 were for executive branch positions. Of the 19
nominations on which cloture was sought in the 109th Congress, 12 were for executive branch
Congressional Research Service
5
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
positions. Of the 21 nominations on which cloture was sought in the 111th Congress, 16 were for
executive branch positions. Table 3 summarizes the outcomes of cloture action on executive and
judicial nominations, broken down into seven periods that display distinct patterns.
Table 4. Nominations Subjected to Cloture Attempts, 1968-2010
Congress
and Year
Nominee
Position
Number
of Cloture
Attemptsa
Final
Outcome
of
Cloture
Attemptb
Disposition
of
Nomination
90th, 1968
Abe Fortas
Chief Justice
1
rejected,
45-43
withdrawn
92nd, 1971
William H. Rehnquist
Associate Justice
2
rejected,
52-42
confirmed
96th, 1980
William A. Lubbers
General Counsel, National
Labor Relations Board
96th, 1980
Don Zimmerman
Member, National Labor
Relations Board
3
invoked,
63-31
confirmed
96th, 1980
Stephen G. Breyer
Circuit Judge
2
invoked,
68-28
confirmed
98th, 1984
J. Harvie Wilkinson
Circuit Judge
2
invoked,
65-32
confirmed
99th, 1986
Sidney A. Fitzwater
District Judge
1
invoked,
64-33
confirmed
99th, 1986
Daniel A. Manion
Circuit Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
99th,
William H. Rehnquist
Chief Justice
1
invoked,
68-31
confirmed
100th, 1987
Melissa Wells
Ambassador
1
invoked,
64-24
confirmed
100th, 1987
C. William Verity
Secretary of Commerce
1
invoked,
85-8
confirmed
102nd, 1992
Edward Earl Carnes, Jr.
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
66-30
confirmed
103rd, 1993
Walter Dellinger
Assistant Attorney General
2
rejected,
59-39
confirmed
103rd, 1993
five nominationsc
State Department
2
rejected,
58-42
confirmed
103rd, 1993
Janet Napolitano
U.S. Attorney
1
invoked,
72-26
confirmed
103rd, 1994
M. Larry Lawrence
Ambassador
1
felld
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Rosemary Barkett
Circuit Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Sam Brown
Ambassador
3
rejected,
56-42
returned to
president
103rd, 1994
Derek Shearer
Ambassador
2
invoked,
62-36
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Ricki Tigert
Board Member and Chair,
2
invoked,
confirmed
1986
Congressional Research Service
3
invoked,
62-34
confirmed
6
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Congress
and Year
Nominee
Position
Number
of Cloture
Attemptsa
Final
Outcome
of
Cloture
Attemptb
Disposition
of
Nomination
63-32
Federal Deposit Insurance
Corporationc
103rd, 1994
H. Lee Sarokin
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
85-12
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Buster Glosson
Air Force Lieutenant
General (retired)
1
withdrawn
confirmed
103rd, 1994
Claude Bolton, Jr.
Air Force Brigadier General
1
vitiatedf
confirmed
confirmed
103rd,
Edward P. Barry, Jr.
Air Force Lieutenant
General (retired)
1
vitiatedf
1994
104th, 1995
Henry Foster
Surgeon General
2
rejected,
57-43
105th, 1997
Joel I. Klein
Assistant Attorney General
1
invoked,
78-11
confirmed
105th, 1998
David Satcher
Surgeon General
1
invoked,
75-23
confirmed
106th, 1999
Brian Theadore Stewart
District Judge
1
rejected,
55-44
confirmed
106th, 2000
Marsha L. Berzon
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
86-13
confirmed
106th, 2000
Richard A. Paez
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
85-14
confirmed
107th, 2002
Lavenski R. Smith
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
94-3
confirmed
107th, 2002
Richard R. Clifton
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
97-1
confirmed
107th, 2002
Richard H. Carmona
Surgeon General
1
invoked,
98-0
confirmed
107th, 2002
Julia Smith Gibbons
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
89-0
confirmed
107th, 2002
Dennis W. Shedd
Circuit Judge
1
vitiatedf
confirmed
108th, 2003
Victor J. Wolski
Judge, Court of Claims
1
vitiatedf
confirmed
108th, 2003
Miguel A. Estrada
Circuit Judge
7
rejected,
55-43
withdrawn
108th, 2003
Michael O. Leavitt
Administrator,
Environmental Protection
Agency
1
withdrawn
confirmed
108th, 2003
Charles W. Pickering, Sr.
Circuit Judge
1
rejected,
54-43
no final vote
108th, 2003
William H. Pryor, Jr.
Circuit Judge
2
rejected,
51-43
no final vote
108th, 2003
Priscilla Richman Owen
Circuit Judge
4
rejected,
53-42
no final vote
Congressional Research Service
no final vote
7
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Congress
and Year
Nominee
Position
Number
of Cloture
Attemptsa
Final
Outcome
of
Cloture
Attemptb
Disposition
of
Nomination
108th, 2003
Carolyn B. Kuhl
Circuit Judge
2
rejected,
53-43
no final vote
108th, 2003
Janice R. Brown
Circuit Judge
1
rejected,
53-43
no final vote
108th, 2003
Thomas C. Dorr
Undersecretary of
Agriculture for Rural
Development and Board
Member, Commodity
Credit Corporatione
2
rejected,
57-39
no final vote
108th, 2004
Marcia G. Cooke
District Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
108th, 2004
William Gerry Myers III
Circuit Judge
1
rejected,
53-44
no final vote
108th, 2004
David W. McKeague
Circuit Judge
1
rejected,
53-44
no final vote
108th, 2004
Henry W. Saad
Circuit Judge
1
rejected,
52-46
no final vote
108th, 2004
Richard A. Griffin
Circuit Judge
1
rejected,
54-44
no final vote
109th, 2005
Thomas C. Dorr
Undersecretary of
Agriculture for Rural
Development
1
withdrawn
confirmed
109th, 2005
Peter Cyril Wyche
Flory
Assistant Secretary of
Defense
1
rejected,
52-41
no final vote
109th, 2005
Priscilla Richman Owen
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
81-18
confirmed
109th, 2005
William H. Pryor, Jr.
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
67-32
confirmed
109th, 2005
Janice R. Brown
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
65-32
confirmed
109th, 2005
John R. Bolton
U.S. Representative to the
United Nations
2
rejected,
54-38
109th, 2005
Stephen L. Johnson
Administrator,
Environmental Protection
Agency
1
invoked,
61-37
confirmed
109th, 2005
Robert J. Portman
U.S. Trade Representative
1
vitiated
confirmed
109th, 2006
Gordon England
Deputy Secretary of
Defense
1
withdrawn
confirmed
109th, 2006
Eric S. Edelman
Under Secretary of Defense
for Policy
1
withdrawn
confirmed
109th, 2006
Benjamin A. Powell
General Counsel, Office of
the Director of National
Intelligence
1
withdrawn
confirmed
109th, 2006
Richard Stickler
Assistant Secretary of Labor
1
withdrawn
no final vote
Congressional Research Service
no final vote
8
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Congress
and Year
Nominee
Position
Number
of Cloture
Attemptsa
Final
Outcome
of
Cloture
Attemptb
Disposition
of
Nomination
for Mine Safety and Health
109th, 2006
Dorrance Smith
Assistant Secretary of
Defense
1
withdrawn
confirmed
109th, 2006
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Associate Justice, Supreme
Court
1
invoked,
72-25
confirmed
109th, 2006
Brett M. Kavanaugh
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
67-30
confirmed
109th, 2006
Andrew von
Eschenbach
Commissioner, Food and
Drug Administration
1
invoked,
89-6
confirmed
109th, 2006
Dirk Kempthorne
Secretary of the Interior
1
invoked,
85-8
confirmed
109th, 2006
Kent A. Jordan
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
93-0
confirmed
110th, 2007
Leslie Southwick
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
62-35
confirmed
111th, 2009
Hilda Solis
Secretary of Labor
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th,
Austan Dean
Goolsbee
Member, Council of
Economic Advisers
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th, 2009
Cecilia Elena Rouse
Member, Council of
Economic Advisers
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th, 2009
David W. Ogden
Deputy Attorney General
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th, 2009
David J. Hayes
Deputy Secretary of the
Interior
1
rejected,
57-39
confirmed
111th, 2009
Christopher R. Hill
U.S. Ambassador to Iraq
1
invoked,
73-17
confirmed
111th, 2009
David F. Hamilton
Circuit judge
1
invoked,
70-29
confirmed
111th, 2010
Lael Brainard
Under Secretary, Treasury
Department
1
invoked,
84-10
confirmed
111th, 2010
Harold Hongju Koh
Legal Advisor, Department
of State
1
invoked,
65-31
confirmed
111th, 2010
Marisa J. Demeo
Associate Judge, Superior
Court, District of Columbia
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th, 2010
William K. Sessions III
Chair, United States
Sentencing Commission
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th, 2010
M. Patricia Smith
Solicitor, Department of
Labor
1
invoked,
60-32
confirmed
111th, 2010
Cass R. Sunstein
Administrator, Office of
Information and Regulatory
Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget
1
invoked,
63-35
confirmed
111th, 2010
Robert M. Groves
Director of the Census,
1
invoked,
confirmed
2009
Congressional Research Service
9
Cloture Attempts on Nominations
Congress
and Year
Nominee
Number
of Cloture
Attemptsa
Position
Department of Commerce
Final
Outcome
of
Cloture
Attemptb
Disposition
of
Nomination
76-15
111th, 2010
Martha N. Johnson
Administrator, General
Services Administration
1
invoked,
82-16
confirmed
111th, 2010
Thomas J. Vanaskie
Circuit Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th, 2010
Barbara Milano Keenan
Circuit Judge
1
invoked,
99-0
confirmed
111th, 2010
Ben S. Bernanke
Chairman, Board of
Governors of the Federal
Reserve System
1
invoked,
77-23
confirmed
111th, 2010
Denny Chin
Circuit Judge
1
withdrawn
confirmed
111th, 2010
Craig Becker
Member, National Labor
Relations Board
1
rejected,
52-33
no final vote
111th, 2010
Christopher H.
Schroeder
Assistant Attorney General
1
withdrawn
confirmed
Sources: Compilations by CRS and Senate Library; Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress; U.S.
Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Senate Cloture Rule, committee print 99-95, 99th
Congress, 1st session (Washington: GPO, 1985), pp. 44-70, 78-85; Congressional Record (Daily Digest); and
Congressional Quarterly Almanac for 1986, 1987, 1992, 1995, 1999.
Notes: Executive branch nominations in roman; Judicial nominations in italic. Final outcome of cloture attempt is
in bold when cloture was rejected. Disposition of nomination is in bold when the nominee was not confirmed.
a.
Category includes both cloture motions filed and votes of the Senate to reconsider a cloture vote.
b.
On several of the nominations, the Senate held more than one cloture vote. This vote represents the final
cloture vote of that Congress on the nomination.
c.
These five nominations to various positions in the State Department received consideration and cloture
action concurrently, and are counted as one case in the tables.
d.
Cloture motion became moot and received no action.
e.
The individual was nominated simultaneously for the two positions specified, and cloture action took place
on each nomination in turn. The table counts all actions on one nominee as one case.
f.
By unanimous consent, the Senate treated the cloture motion as having no effect.
Author Contact Information
Richard S. Beth
Specialist on Congress and the Legislative Process
rbeth@crs.loc.gov, 7-8667
Congressional Research Service
Betsy Palmer
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
bpalmer@crs.loc.gov, 7-0381
10