Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture
in the Senate
Christopher M. Davis
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
January 3, 2013
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R41342
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Summary
Paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXII, also known as the “cloture rule,” was adopted in 1917. It
established a procedure, amended several times over the intervening years, by which the Senate
may limit debate and act on a pending measure or matter. Aside from unanimous consent
agreements and statutory limits applying to certain types of legislation, cloture is the only
mechanism by which the Senate can limit debate.
In recent years, some Senators have expressed renewed concerns over the way in which extended
debate is conducted in the Senate and the operation of the cloture rule. Proposals for changing the
cloture process include the establishment of new precedents on amending the rules, changes in
the threshold necessary to invoke cloture, reductions in the time costs associated with certain
cloture-related actions, and new or additional restrictions on debate in certain circumstances.
This report provides a brief history of the Senate cloture rule, explains its main features and the
arguments made by supporters and opponents of these features, outlines a range of proposals to
change its operation, and briefly explains the methods by which the Senate might change its rules
or practices.

Congressional Research Service

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Contents
Brief History of the Cloture Rule .................................................................................................... 1
Features of the Present Cloture Rule ............................................................................................... 2
Issues Surrounding Extended Debate .............................................................................................. 3
Arguments in Support of Extended Debate ............................................................................... 3
Arguments in Favor of Strengthening Limits on Debate ........................................................... 3
Potential Changes to Rules Governing Limits on Senate Debate .................................................... 4
Chair Ruling on a Rules Change or on the Constitutionality of Extended Debate .................... 4
Status of Senate Rules ......................................................................................................... 4
Proposals for Overcoming Entrenchment ........................................................................... 5
Reduce the Threshold Necessary to Invoke Cloture .................................................................. 7
Reduce the Time Expended on Cloture and Ending Debate ...................................................... 8
Restrict Debate on Certain Questions or Limit the Questions Subject to Extended
Debate ..................................................................................................................................... 9
Debate on the Motion to Proceed ...................................................................................... 10
Debate on Motions to Go to Conference ........................................................................... 11
Limit Debate on Measures Subject to Multiple Cloture Motions ..................................... 12
Broaden Application of Two-speech Rule to Nominations ............................................... 13
Increase Procedural Burdens Borne by Opponents of Cloture ................................................ 14
Other Related Issues ................................................................................................................ 16
Altering the Practice of Extended Debate under Existing Rules ....................................... 16
Altering the Effect of “Holds” ........................................................................................... 17
Opportunities for Amending .............................................................................................. 18
Effective Dates for Change Proposals ............................................................................... 19
Procedures for Changing Senate Rules and Practices .................................................................... 20

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 21
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 21

Congressional Research Service

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Brief History of the Cloture Rule
Proposals to limit Senate debate are as old as the Senate itself. Over the 224-year history of the
body, numerous procedures have been proposed to allow the Senate to end discussion and act.1
The most important debate-limiting procedure enacted was the adoption in 1917 of the “cloture
rule,” codified in paragraph 2 of Senate Rule XXII. Under the current version of this rule, a
process for ending debate on a pending measure or matter may be set in motion by a
supermajority vote of the Senate.
Since the Senate’s adoption of the cloture rule in 1917, proposals have been advanced to repeal or
amend it in almost every session of Congress.2 At times, Senators of both political parties have
debated the merits of the Senate’s tradition of free and unlimited debate. These debates have
occurred at different times and under different sets of circumstances as Senators attempted, for
example, to prevent filibusters of civil rights measures, pass consumer protection legislation, or
secure the confirmation of judicial or executive branch nominations.
Debates on the cloture rule have frequently focused on whether the Senate must consider
amendments to it under the body’s existing rules, including Rule XXII itself. This argument rests
on the principle that the Senate is a “continuing body,” and relatedly, that its rules stay in force
from one Congress to the next. A contrary argument contends that this principle has the effect of
“entrenching” the existing rules against change, a situation which amounts to an unconstitutional
limit on the power of the body to set the terms of its own operation. To overcome these
difficulties, Senators attempting to change Rule XXII have employed various procedural tactics,
including seeking to invoke cloture by majority vote, seeking opinions by the Vice President
acting as presiding officer that the cloture rule itself is unconstitutional, and arguing that the
Senate’s standing rules do not apply on the first day of a Congress.
Although many attempts have been made to amend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII, only six
amendments have been adopted since the cloture rule was enacted in 1917: those undertaken in
1949, 1959, 1975, 1976, 1979, and 1986. Each of these changes was made within the framework
of the existing or “entrenched” rules of the Senate, including Rule XXII.3
In 1949, the cloture rule was amended to apply to all “matters,” as well as measures, a change
that expanded its reach to nominations, most motions to proceed to consider measures, and other
motions. A decade later, in 1959, its reach was further expanded to include debate on motions to
proceed to consider changes in the Senate rules themselves. The threshold for invoking cloture

1 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), committee print, prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 112th Cong., 1st sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2011), p. 11.
2 U.S. Library of Congress, Congressional Research Service, Limitation of Debate in the United States Senate, by
George B. Galloway (Washington: December, 1956), p. 5; U.S. Congress, Senate, Debate in the United States Senate:
Extracts from the Journal of the United States Senate Pertaining to Limitation of Debate in the Senate of the United
States (Washington: GPO: 1917), pp. 1-10. Although repeal of Rule XXII has been proposed by some as a way to
eliminate filibusters (see, e.g., S.Res. 249, 108th Congress), such an action would leave the Senate with no mechanism
with which to end debate and would thus arguable have the contrary effect.
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), committee print, 112th Cong. 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 183-225.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

was lowered in 1975 from two-thirds present and voting to three-fifths of the full Senate except
on proposals to amend Senate rules. In a change made in 1976, amendments filed by Senators
after cloture was invoked were no longer required to be read aloud in the chamber if they were
available at least 24 hours in advance.4
In 1979, Senators added an overall “consideration cap” to Rule XXII to prevent so-called post-
cloture filibusters, which occurred when Senators continued dilatory parliamentary tactics even
after cloture had been invoked. In 1986, this “consideration cap” was reduced from 100 hours to
30 hours.
Features of the Present Cloture Rule
In its current form, which was adopted in 1986, Rule XXII provides that a cloture motion must be
signed by 16 Senators and presented on the Senate floor. One hour after the Senate meets on the
second calendar day of session after a cloture motion has been filed (and after a quorum has been
ascertained), the presiding officer puts the question, “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate
shall be brought to a close?” The cloture motion is then subject to a mandatory yea-and-nay vote.
If three-fifths of Senators—60 if there is no more than one vacancy in the body—vote for the
cloture motion, the Senate must take final action on the matter on which it has invoked cloture by
the end of 30 total hours of additional consideration. Invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the
Senate’s standing rules requires a higher threshold: approval by two-thirds of the Senators present
and voting or 67 senators if there are no vacancies and all Senators vote. Once cloture has been
invoked, the clotured matter remains the pending business of the Senate until it is disposed of,
and no Senator may speak for more than one hour. Senators may yield all or part of their allotted
hour to a floor manager or floor leader, who may then yield time to other Senators. Each floor
manager and leader, however, can have no more than two hours in total yielded to him or her. As
with most Senate procedures, any of these requirements may be waived or their operations altered
by unanimous consent. The mandatory quorum call, for example, is almost always waived by
unanimous consent.
After cloture has been invoked, no dilatory amendments or motions are permitted, and all debate
and amendments must be germane.5 Only amendments filed before the cloture vote (or still
pending, if germane) may be considered, and a Senator may not call up more than two
amendments until every other Senator has had an opportunity to do likewise. Printed amendments
that have been available for at least 24 hours are not read when called up.
Time for votes, quorum calls, and other actions is charged against the 30-hour limit on
consideration. This time limit may be extended by joint leadership motion if three-fifths of all
Senators vote for a non-debatable motion to do so. Senators who have not used or yielded 10

4 Ibid, pp. 123-124.
5 The germaneness standard applied to amendments in the post-cloture period is more restrictive than relevancy.
Application of the restriction depends on the unique characteristics of the case in question. For more detail, see Floyd
M. Riddick and Alan S. Frumin, Riddick’s Senate Procedure (hereafter, Riddick’s) 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 101-
28 (Washington: GPO,1992), pp. 289-295, 854-862.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

minutes of their hour are guaranteed up to 10 minutes to speak. When all time expires, the Senate
immediately votes on any pending amendments and then on the underlying matter.6
Issues Surrounding Extended Debate
Arguments in Support of Extended Debate7
Supporters of extended debate believe that the American system of government should safeguard
certain rights of legislative minorities against the power of a majority. Further, they argue,
obstruction is sometimes justified to prevent a majority from restricting the rights of a minority
until a broad political consensus has developed on an issue. They note that the structure of the
Senate was intended to protect the rights of smaller states, and assert that the diminishment of
minority rights would undermine this intent.
Defenders of extended debate also contend that, in the long run, matters that are truly in the
nation’s best interest have not been permanently blocked by extended debate. Likewise, the
Senate’s tradition of debate has protected different political parties at different times in history.
The cloture rule has been in effect for nearing 100 years with little ill effect, they contend.
Supporters of extended debate believe that the ability of any Senator to speak at length about
virtually any topic at any time is a unique characteristic of the Senate that allows the chamber to
play a vital role in the legislative process, serving to cool passions and force deliberation.
Furthermore, supporters argue, this more deliberative approach was intended by the framers of
the Constitution, differentiating the Senate from the House. Removed of this deliberative
function, they believe the Senate would become a shadow of the larger House of Representatives,
and would specifically surrender its unique role as a check on the executive branch through its
role in executive business—that is, nominations and treaties.
Arguments in Favor of Strengthening Limits on Debate
Supporters of restricting debate argue that it is undemocratic to allow a determined minority to
prevent an institutional majority from working its will. They say that the current process gives too
much power to the minority at the expense of the majority, contending that although the founders
intended the Senate to be more deliberative than the House, they did not intend to create a
chamber where the minority could stall or prevent all action. Further, they believe it undermines
public accountability of a majority in its responsibilities to manage the chamber’s policy agenda.
In addition, extended debate by one Senator or a small group of Senators expends valuable time
and money, supporters of changing debate rules argue, and brings public disrepute because the
Senate cannot act in a timely fashion on important issues. Much legislation and many qualified
nominations have been delayed or defeated by extended debate, they contend.

6 For more information, see CRS Report 98-425, Invoking Cloture in the Senate, by Christopher M. Davis.
7 Several arguments from this and the following section are drawn from U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Rules
and Administration, Senate Cloture Rule: Limitation of Debate in the Congress of the United States, committee print,
prepared by the Congressional Research Service, 94th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1975), pp. 55-58.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Supporters of proposals to limit debate assert that their proposed changes would still provide
those who oppose a bill or matter significant time to discuss the proposal, but would not allow
them to block action on it if a majority of the Senate supported it. Proponents of additional debate
limitations focus on the benefits of an up or down vote, regardless of the outcome.
Potential Changes to Rules Governing Limits on
Senate Debate
As noted above, the Senate has considered—and in some cases, adopted—changes to the cloture
rule and associated procedures at various times in the past. In recent Congresses—and perhaps
especially in the 112th (2011-2012) and 111th (2009-2010) Congresses—some Senators have
expressed renewed concern over the effect of extended debate on the Senate’s capacity to act
efficiently. Rather than list all (sometimes overlapping) proposals introduced in recent
Congresses, the discussion below groups proposals into categories based on the procedural
mechanism by which the change would be effected or the overall goal of the change.8
The first category addressed below includes proposals that provide a non-rule-based mechanism
by which the Senate could change its rules or precedents, or both, without needing to surmount
the supermajority hurdle present in existing rules; specifically, these proposals hinge on a novel
ruling by the Senate’s presiding officer in relation to Senate rules on debate or the
constitutionality thereof. The second category discussed focuses on changes to the rules that
would alter the vote threshold by which cloture is invoked. A third group of proposals focuses on
the time the Senate must expend in using the cloture process to end debate on a question. Fourth,
the report discusses proposals to limit debate on only certain questions (e.g., on the motion to
proceed, motions related to establishing a conference committee). The fifth and final category
addressed includes proposals that would increase the procedural burden on those opposing an end
to debate on a particular matter. This section of the report then concludes by addressing other
proposals that have been discussed in the context of changing the cloture process.
Chair Ruling on a Rules Change or on the Constitutionality of
Extended Debate
Status of Senate Rules
As noted earlier, the Senate considers itself to be a “continuing body.” This is because (1) the
Constitution provides for overlapping Senate terms by which only one-third of the seats can
theoretically turn over in each election (and therefore, two-thirds of the Senate continues to serve
with no interruption), and (2) the number of Senators continuing their service exceeds the number
constitutionally required (a simple majority) for a quorum. Thus, there is no point at the

8 Many of these proposals, as will be noted below, were included in Senate resolutions introduced in the 112th and 111th
Congresses; this report explains a wider range of variations in proposed mechanisms that have also informally been
discussed or formally proposed in recent years. Though legislative actions on these proposals are not discussed in this
report, four of those proposed in the 112th Congress did receive votes on January 27, 2011. The Senate did not adopt
S.Res. 8, S.Res. 10 (as amended), or S.Res. 21 (as amended), but did adopt one of the standing orders mentioned in this
report: S.Res. 28 (addressing anonymous “holds”).
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

beginning of a new Congress at which the Senate could be said to lack the possibility of a quorum
for processing chamber business.9
This principle has been interpreted to imply that the Senate is continuously organized across
Congresses, as well. In other words, Senate rules continue to apply across Congresses with no
action necessary from the body to readopt them.10 The Senate did not readopt its rules at the
beginning of the 2nd Congress (1791-1792), and standing rules changes have always been
accomplished in the context of the procedures and precedents established by the standing rules as
they existed at the time. In 1959, the Senate explicitly incorporated this understanding into the
standing rules, which state, “The Rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next
Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules” (Rule V, paragraph 2).
Because of the continued application of Senate rules, it has been said that Senate rules are
“entrenched” in the sense that action to change the standing rules is constrained by existing rules
that provide limited mechanisms to end debate on most matters.11 Thus, to change the rules
requires (1) using procedures that may require a supermajority for certain steps, or (2) a departure
from the principle that the existing system of procedure (and precedents in relation thereto)
remains in effect.
Proposals for Overcoming Entrenchment
In the past several Congresses, there has been increased discussion of what recently has been
called by some a “nuclear” parliamentary option to end debate and vote. Under such a scenario,
the chair, perhaps occupied by the Vice President serving as presiding officer or by the President
pro tempore of the Senate, would set aside the existing provisions of Rule XXII and rule that
cloture could be invoked by simple majority vote. Supporters of such an approach argue that if
such a ruling were appealed by opponents or submitted to the Senate for decision, and then
sustained by a majority vote, debate would end and the pending business could then be brought to
a vote.
In another version of this scenario, a Senator might raise a constitutional point of order against
the decision that cloture had not been invoked on a matter, and the same end achieved if the point
of order were sustained by a majority vote of Senators. Supporters argue that this proceeding
would be permissible because under the Constitution, the Senate has the express right to make, or
change, the rules of its proceedings at any time. This has led some Senators to call this scenario
the “constitutional option.” Under Senate precedents, however, constitutional questions are to be
submitted to a vote of the full chamber for decision;12 therefore, the chair also would have to act
in contravention of the precedent that constitutional questions are submitted to the Senate (or the

9 The concept of the Senate being a continuing body was enunciated on the Senate floor as early as the mid-1800s and
has been affirmed in a variety of contexts since. In contrast to the Senate, the House of Representatives has no members
who continue to serve a term across an election cycle; that body, therefore, organizes itself anew at the start of each
Congress.
10 In addition, elected officers of the Senate have continued to hold their positions from one Congress until the next
(although this was not the original practice with the President pro tempore), and in current practice, committees keep
membership until replaced (though the Senate’s initial practice was to determine committee rosters anew annually).
11 For more information, see CRS Report RL32843, “Entrenchment” of Senate Procedure and the “Nuclear Option”
for Change: Possible Proceedings and Their Implications, by Richard S. Beth.
12 Riddick’s, p. 685.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

rule that submitted questions are debatable), perhaps by stating that the body has a right to “get to
the question” at hand.
In the 108th and 109th Congresses, the focus of such proposals was on certain judicial
nominations, not on other business.13 Those concerned about filibusters on these questions in
particular argued that the inability of the Senate to reach a final vote on a nomination represented
an abdication by the Senate of a constitutional duty, that of advising and consenting to
nominations.
In the current context (as well as in some historical ones), these proposals are often intended
instead to apply to all debatable questions, or, in some cases, at least to questions in relation to a
rules change at the start of a new Congress. 14 Indeed, Senate floor proceedings at the start of the
112th Congress were conducted in light of this perspective, including actions that kept the Senate
in the first “legislative day” beyond the initial calendar day of Senate session.15
Opponents have used the term nuclear to describe these scenarios, in part because they rely on
steps that would contravene existing rules or precedents, or both, but also because of the belief
that their use would destroy the comity and senatorial courtesy necessary in a body that operates
overwhelmingly by unanimous consent. They further argue that such an approach might destroy
the unique character of the Senate itself, making it more like the House of Representatives, where
a majority has the ability to halt debate any time it wishes.
Observers point out that such a parliamentary proceeding is not unprecedented. On several
occasions, Vice Presidents acting as the presiding officer (including Vice Presidents Richard
Nixon, Hubert Humphrey, and Nelson Rockefeller) offered advisory opinions from the chair that
the provisions of Rule XXII can be changed by a majority vote of the Senate at the beginning of a
Congress.16 In 1975, a ruling to this effect, submitted to the chamber by Vice President Nelson
Rockefeller, was sustained by a vote of the Senate. The Senate later reversed itself by recorded
vote, but whether this obliterated the precedent permitting cloture by majority vote has been a
source of disagreement. For example, Senator Robert C. Byrd, the architect of the 1975 cloture
amendment, observed that the reversal vote “erased the precedent of majority cloture established
two weeks before, and reaffirmed the ‘continuous’ nature of Senate rules.”17 Others argued that

13 See Geoff Earle, “‘Nuclear’ Option Retained to Break Filibuster,” The Hill, June 25, 2003, p. 1. Mike Allen, “GOP
Plans ‘Marathon’ On Judges; Debate to Spotlight Blocked Nominees,” The Washington Post, Nov 8, 2003. p. A.01.
Charles Hurt, “Senate GOP Fuzzy on Tactics to Handle Judicial Filibusters; Frist Dodges ‘Nuclear Option’ Query,”
The Washington Times, September 7, 2003. p. A.06.
14 S.Res. 396 (111th Congress) sought to address this issue and provide that Senate rules do not automatically apply on
the first day of a new Congress. To provide for a rules change outside the operation of the current rules allowing
extended debate on such a question, the resolution presumed expiration of the current standing rules (but did not
provide a mechanism to implement or cause their expiration). The resolution did not provide a mechanism by which the
Senate would end debate on a rules change. S.Res. 619 (112th Congress) more directly sought to establish that the
Senate rules do not carry over from one Congress to the next and stated that if a motion to close debate was agreed to
by a numerical majority, the Senate could go on to adopt new rules of proceedings.
15 A new legislative day is only triggered by an adjournment of the Senate; if the Senate instead recesses from day to
day, the legislative day remains the date the Senate met following the last adjournment, while the calendar day
continues on.
16 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), committee print, 112th Cong. 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 2011), pp. 29-31.
17 Robert C. Byrd, The Senate, 1789-1989, Addresses on the History of the United States Senate, vol. 2 (Washington:
GPO, 1991), p. 132.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

such a precedent was established and was not overturned. Senator Walter F. Mondale observed,
“the Rule XXII experience was significant because for the first time in history, a Vice President
and a clear majority of the Senate established that the Senate may, at the beginning of a new
Congress and unencumbered by the rules of previous Senates, adopt its own rules by majority
vote as a constitutional right. The last minute votes attempting to undo that precedent in no way
undermine that right.”18
Reduce the Threshold Necessary to Invoke Cloture
One element of the cloture rule that the Senate has changed on occasion is the voting threshold
required for the invocation of cloture, which is currently three-fifths of the full Senate (60,
assuming no more than one vacancy). Some have proposed changing this threshold to three-fifths
of those present and voting (provided that a quorum—a simple majority—is present).19 This
change would lower the number of votes necessary to invoke cloture by only a few in some cases,
but it could affect a handful of significant votes; in addition, for those voting against cloture, it
would provide an incentive to be present and cast a vote because nonvoting Senators would have
the effect of lowering the number of votes needed for cloture. (If only a quorum voted, then
supporters would theoretically need as few as 31 of 51 votes—that is, three-fifths of a quorum.)
A related proposal would change Rule XXII to allow for multiple cloture votes in which the vote
threshold to invoke cloture gradually drops lower with each successive vote (e.g., starting at 60,
then dropping to 57, then 54, then 51). By implementing a change like this, supporters say, the
Senate could allow a determined simple majority the ability to eventually work its will. In past
Congresses, advocates proposed to apply this “ratchet” process only to nominations—premised
on a distinction between executive business and legislative business—arguing that the existing
supermajority vote requirement in pursuit of a vote on a nomination is not consistent with the
constitutional provisions for Senate advice and consent. In the current context, however, this sort
of change has been proposed to apply to all matters—including legislation—on which a cloture
motion might be filed.20 In these cases, there would be no guarantee that the Senate would
actually debate the matter on which cloture has been filed during the days the cloture motion must
lay over. In addition, because recent proposals along these lines would not allow for a subsequent
cloture motion to be filed until after the disposition of the previous motion, this approach would
require significant expenditure of floor time. (Currently, cloture petitions can be filed on
successive days—or even on the same day—without first disposing of the previous petition, so
that each motion can meet the layover requirement simultaneously.)

18 Walter F. Mondale, “The Filibuster Fight,” The Washington Post, March 18, 1975, p. A16.
19 S.Res. 12 (112th Congress) and S.Res. 440 (111th Congress) included such a proposal. Under current rules, the
“present and voting” standard applies to most other vote thresholds: e.g., the majority needed for adoption or passage of
a matter, as well as the two-thirds vote needed to suspend the rules, invoke cloture on a rules change, or ratify a treaty.
The three-fifths of the full Senate threshold applies to some situations other than cloture (e.g., motions to waive the
Budget Act, appeals of chair rulings on motions with a three-fifths threshold, and motions to waive points of order
against conference reports as provided by Rules XXVIII and XLIV). For more in-depth analysis of the procedural
implications of the changes proposed in S.Res. 440, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum, Two Proposals
to Change Senate Standing Rules: S.Res. 440 and S. Res. 465 (111th Congress), by Valerie Heitshusen (available on
request).
20 S.Res. 8 (112th) and S.Res. 416 (111th) both proposed just such a change. After one unsuccessful cloture vote,
subsequent motions could be filed. On each subsequent cloture motion, the vote threshold by which cloture would be
invoked would be three less than on the previous motion (until the threshold reaches a bare majority of Senators chosen
and sworn).
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Other proposals seek to change Rule XXII so as to allow a simple majority to invoke cloture on
the first attempt, not just to allow for a gradual reduction in the vote threshold. Proponents argue
that the existing cloture process (including the two-day layover of the motion and the possibility
of 30 hours of post-cloture consideration) provides ample time for deliberation and debate, and
that the supermajority requirement is too often used to block passage of a matter rather than
subject it to due deliberation. Opponents of this idea note that the complexity of legislation and
the need for careful deliberation and negotiation often requires more time, especially in situations
in which policy proposals are brought to the floor with little or no committee consideration (a
practice that some Senators assert is on the increase in recent Congresses).
Finally, some proposals would allow for a lower voting threshold to invoke cloture in only
specific circumstances. Some, for example, have proposed applying a lower threshold for
confirmation of nominees, on the argument that a President is entitled to some deference in his
nominations.21 Some advocates of this position support a lower threshold only for executive
branch nominees, not for judicial nominees, due to the potential lifetime nature of appointments
to the federal bench. Other proposals attempt to encourage more bipartisan agreement on
decisions to end debate or at least to discourage filibusters characterized by strict party
polarization; for example, a vote threshold of less than three-fifths might be required for cloture,
but only in circumstances in which some majority party members oppose cloture or, alternatively,
when minority party members support an end to debate.22
Reduce the Time Expended on Cloture and Ending Debate
Other proposals focus on shortening the cloture process itself. As noted earlier, invoking cloture
involves a two-day layover period once a cloture motion is filed, and then—if cloture is
invoked—up to 30 additional hours of consideration of the matter. This means that even if a
cloture motion is immediately filed on a matter on which three-fifths of the Senate will support
cloture, the Senate could very well devote five days of floor time getting to a final vote. Due to
this time-consuming process, some items of business are never considered on the Senate floor;
the majority party has to decide which matters warrant the use of the extensive floor time that
may be necessary to leverage the support of three-fifths of the Senate through a cloture process.
Proposals to shorten this process can focus on the pre-cloture layover period, post-cloture
consideration, or both. In regard to shortening the two-day layover period, one recent proposal
reduces the two-day layover period to a 24-hour layover period.23 Others have proposed creating

21 See, for example, S.Res. 138 (108th Congress), which was reported by the Senate Committee on Rules and
Administration and debated on the Senate floor. This resolution provided for the sort of “ratchet” proposal noted earlier
(in which the vote threshold to invoke cloture declined by three on successive cloture motions), but applied it only to
Senate consideration of nominations.
22 S.Res. 440 (111th Congress) proposed a change along these lines in cases in which the Senate has failed to invoke
cloture on a pending question on three successive attempts. Specifically, on the fourth and subsequent cloture motions,
45 of 100 Senators (rather than the 41 on earlier attempts) would have to oppose ending debate if either no majority
party Senator opposed cloture or if only one majority party Senator opposed cloture and at least three minority party
Senators supported it.
23 See S.Res. 12 (112th Congress).In addition, at the end of the 112th Congress, another proposal for changing the
operation of cloture was publicly-announced by Senator Levin and Senator McCain. A description of this proposal is
available at http://www.levin.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/bipartisan-proposal-to-reform-senate-procedures. This
informal proposal seeks, among other things, to shorten to two hours the layover period for (1) certain cloture motions
on motions to proceed (specifically, those cloture motions signed by both party leaders and at least five additional
Senators from each party), (2) for a cloture motion on a proposed compound motion to set up a conference committee,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

a non-debatable motion that may be made after a cloture motion has been filed, which would
reduce the layover period to some specified amount of time. Such a motion could be subject to a
supermajority vote threshold, so that only on matters with broad support could the period be
reduced.24 Alternatively, some proposals instead provide a mechanism by which the majority
leader under certain circumstances could move the Senate to an immediate vote on cloture before
the layover period has expired.25
Other proposals seek to potentially reduce floor time expended by the Senate during the period
after cloture has been invoked. One recent proposal applies this idea only to consideration of
nominations by eliminating all post-cloture consideration after a successful cloture vote.26
Another proposed a two-hour post-cloture debate limit on nominations.27 Another recent proposal
sought to limit post-cloture consideration of nominations and motions to proceed by allowing the
majority leader, if no one sought recognition on the floor to speak during the 30 hours of post-
cloture debate, to move the Senate to an immediate vote on the nomination or motion to proceed
on which the Senate had voted for cloture.28 Alternatively, some have proposed altering the
existing non-debatable motion in Rule XXII by which three-fifths of the Senate can extend the
30-hour period such that it could also be used to reduce the 30-hour period,29 while another
sought to divide the 30 hours of post-cloture time for control by each party (which could allow
for some time to potentially be yielded back).30
Restrict Debate on Certain Questions or Limit the Questions
Subject to Extended Debate
Rather than attempting to reduce the use of floor time associated with the cloture process in
general, some proposals instead focus on providing new debate limitations on only certain
motions or matters, such that a cloture process would not be necessary in some circumstances.

(...continued)
and (3) for cloture motions on nominations.
24 S.Res. 440 (111th Congress) included a version of such a proposal, establishing a potentially layover-shortening
motion and subjecting it to a two-thirds (chosen and sworn) vote.
25 S.Res. 9 (112th) and S.Res. 465 (111th) both included a similar provision that would allow the majority leader to
move immediately to the vote on cloture if the first degree filling deadline has passed and only if no Senator sought
recognition on the floor. This latter proviso was aimed at not only reducing the time the Senate expends on a pending
cloture motion, but also providing cloture opponents an incentive to engage in debate. This latter goal of some
proposals—in regard to encouraging debate—will be addressed in more depth below. The effect of the proposed rule
change on the second-degree amendment filing deadline was not addressed by the resolutions. For more in-depth
analysis of the procedural implications of the changes proposed in S.Res. 465, see CRS Congressional Distribution
Memorandum, Two Proposals to Change Senate Standing Rules: S.Res. 440 and S.Res. 465 (111th Congress), by
Valerie Heitshusen (available on request).
26 See S.Res. 12 (112th Congress).
27 See S.Res. 10 (112th Congress).
28 S.Res. 465 (111th Congress) includes such a proposed change to Senate rules.
29 S.Res. 440 (111th Congress) includes this provision, but would allow the Senate to reduce the 30 hour period if three-
fifths of Senators present and voting agree (a threshold that may, under some circumstances, be more easily achieved
that one premised on the number of Senators chosen and sworn, as under the existing rule).
30 See S.Res. 12 (112th Congress). The above-referenced informal Levin-McCain proposal in the 112th Congress also
seeks to eliminate all post-cloture time on certain motions to proceed (those for which the cloture motion was signed by
both leaders and by at least five Senators of each caucus) and on nominations. It also proposes an informal agreement
among Senators that post-cloture limits on debate time for each Senator be more frequently enforced.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Some recent proposals along these lines—addressed below—have focused on the motion to
proceed, motions to go to conference, certain amending situations, and new limits in relation to
debate on a pending nomination.
Debate on the Motion to Proceed
The motion to proceed to a matter, under most circumstances, is subject to debate.31 Those
opposed to Senate consideration of a matter, therefore, typically may subject it to extended
debate, thereby requiring the invoking of cloture to end debate on the motion to proceed. The
only other alternative for bringing a measure to the floor for consideration is via unanimous
consent (or as a proposed amendment to another measure). Therefore, many measures that face
opposition in the Senate may be subject to at least two cloture processes (on the motion to
proceed and on the measure itself), which even if supported by three-fifths of the Senate, requires
the expenditure of significant time (during the layover period for the cloture motion, as well as
during the use of any post-cloture debate time).32
One way to hasten Senate action on a matter would be to eliminate or curtail the floor time spent
considering the motion to proceed. Such a change would not remove the ability of opponents to
prevent passage of a measure with a coalition sufficient to block cloture because the measure
itself—and amendments to it—would still be subject to extended debate, theoretically requiring a
cloture process and the support of 60 Senators to end debate and allow a vote on the matter. In
addition, it could be argued that the two-day layover required for a cloture motion is necessary
when filed on a measure because those days are used for the drafting and filing of amendments
that may be proposed post-cloture; these activities are not relevant, however, for cloture on a
motion to proceed to consider. Changing Senate rules such that all (or some additional) motions
to proceed could be non-debatable could have a significant effect on the time the Senate spends
on each matter it considers.
Other proposals to limit the time spent on motions to proceed include ideas that limit debate
without eliminating it entirely. For example, the Senate could instead expand the number of
questions for which the motion to proceed is not debatable beyond the existing circumstances.
Alternatively, the Senate could allow debate on these motions to proceed, but limit it to a certain
number of hours. 33

31 Motions to proceed made during the morning hour are not subject to debate; conference reports, House amendments,
and—pursuant to statute—certain other measures (e.g., a reconciliation bill), under current rules, can be brought up for
floor consideration in the Senate without debate. In addition, a motion to move to executive session to consider a
specific executive or judicial nomination on the Executive Calendar is not subject to debate (though the nomination
itself is).
32 In current practice, the two-day layover for the cloture petition may not require the expenditure of floor time since
the majority leader often withdraws the motion to proceed after filing cloture on it so that the Senate may spend floor
time on other matters until the cloture vote. (The motion continues to “ripen,” even after the withdrawal of the motion
to proceed.) Only the post-cloture 30 hours requires the expenditure of actual floor time on the motion to proceed.
However, the two-day waiting period after cloture has been filed still may delay Senate action on the underlying matter.
33 S.Res. 10 (112th Congress) proposed a two-hour debate limit on all the motions to proceed that are currently subject
to debate, and S.Res. 12 (112th) proposed to limit all debate on all motions to proceed to four hours (except a motion to
proceed to a change to the standing rules). The Levin-McCain informal proposal referenced earlier limits to four hours
debate on certain motions to proceed (which then would result in a modified amending process). S.Res. 440 (111th
Congress) proposed an elimination of debate on all motions to proceed except on those to consider a change in Senate
standing rules. Other past proposals would have established a two-hour debate limit on most motions to proceed
(except, for example, to a rules change proposal). Such proposals often specified that since a motion to proceed can be
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Finally, the Senate could instead establish a new non-debatable motion to limit debate on a
pending motion to proceed, if made by the majority leader. This change, supporters argue, would
allow the Senate to make a decision about the length of debate on the motion to proceed on a
case-by-case basis. Of course, the Senate could make such a motion to limit debate subject to a
simple majority vote, but even subjecting the motion to a supermajority threshold could serve to
limit the time spent on motions to proceed. Certainly, a majority threshold would prove an easier
hurdle to clear in deciding whether to subject a certain motion to proceed to extended debate.
However, even a supermajority threshold of three-fifths for such a vote could also provide the
Senate a faster way of bringing the measure to the floor; while the 60 votes necessary likely
would be the same as the 60 votes necessary to invoke cloture on a motion to proceed, allowing
this motion to limit debate could still allow the Senate to immediately agree to the motion to
proceed rather than spend the multiple days necessary to invoke cloture and conclude
consideration of a motion to proceed. 34
Debate on Motions to Go to Conference
By precedent, the three actions the Senate must take when arranging to send a measure to
conference with the House are all separate: disagree to a House amendment (or insist on a Senate
amendment); request (or agree to) a conference; and grant the presiding officer the authority to
appoint conferees. In addition, Senators can offer motions to instruct conferees, and various other
motions are in order during the consideration of motions to disagree (or insist) and motions to
request (or agree to) a conference committee.
The Senate normally takes all three required actions en bloc by unanimous consent. If a Senator
objected to such a unanimous consent request, however, debate could occur separately on each of
the three required actions; under current procedures, the floor manager may not offer one motion
to take all three actions. Although cloture could be invoked on each of the three actions, the
requirement to do so separately on each has made the threat of a single Senator to obstruct the
process at this stage extremely potent.35
Some Senators have suggested that Senate rules be amended to allow these motions to be
combined, thus permitting a single motion to facilitate arranging for a conference committee.36

(...continued)
made by any Senator, any new limit on debate on the motion be made to apply only to motions made by the majority
leader. This would conform with the custom in the Senate that the majority leader is expected to take responsibility for
setting the floor agenda.
34 In current practice, the Senate commonly—by unanimous consent—sets supermajority thresholds on certain votes as
a way to protect the rights of a numerical minority that exceeds 40 while allowing the Senate to expedite consideration
of a matter by avoiding the time-consuming cloture process. See CRS Report RL34491, Unanimous Consent
Agreements Establishing a 60-Vote Threshold for Passage of Legislation in the Senate, by Megan S. Lynch.
35 Riddick’s, pp. 454-455. As an additional hurdle, Senators may offer motions to instruct conferees immediately before
they have been appointed (in other words, just after the second of the three steps identified above have been taken); the
number of motions to instruct conferees is unlimited, and each is debatable (though each is also subject to a non-
debatable motion to table).
36 S.Res. 12 (112th Congress) proposed one compound motion for going to conference that would be limited to four
hours of debate. The Levin-McCain informal proposal referenced earlier also seeks to create a compound motion to
take the Senate steps necessary for conference, and proposes a modified cloture process thereon. (The layover period
for a cloture motion would be only two hours, and no post-cloture consideration would occur prior to a vote, if cloture
was successfully invoked.)
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Leaving the unified motion debatable could still require a cloture process, but it would require
only one, whereas the current rules may require three.37
The Senate may also seek to resolve differences with the House using amendment exchange
(sometimes called “ping-pong”). Because of the availability of this option, those who may
prevent the Senate from going to conference do not necessarily prevent the Senate from resolving
its differences with the House. The amendment exchange process may be structured to limit the
input of those opposing a conference, thus undermining their goals. Given this alternative,
proposals that may expedite Senate actions necessary for conference may attract support from
those who believe that amendment exchange process is even less likely to result in attention to
their policy concerns.38
Limit Debate on Measures Subject to Multiple Cloture Motions
An alternative proposal aims to reduce the need to invoke cloture multiple times on the same
policy proposal. Even if the Senate does not need to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed to a
measure, it frequently must invoke it twice (or more) during consideration due to the application
of certain principles of the amending process under cloture; specifically, it is common practice for
the Senate to consider, and agree to, an amendment in the nature of a substitute to a bill that may
have been proposed by a committee or offered on the floor as a policy option negotiated after the
bill’s introduction or pendency. Because Rule XXII prohibits non-germane amendments from
being offered after cloture is invoked on a bill—and because an amendment in the nature of a
substitute frequently includes provisions that are not germane to the underlying bill it seeks to
amend—the Senate must invoke cloture on this substitute amendment before invoking it on the
underlying bill. (Otherwise, the substitute amendment would fall as non-germane once cloture
was invoked on the bill.) 39
This means that the Senate must go through the time-consuming cloture process twice on almost
all bills on which an amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered, even though the Senate is,
in effect, invoking cloture twice on the same text (because if the substitute was agreed to, the
second vote is on invoking cloture on the underlying bill, as fully amended by the substitute). To
avoid this “double” cloture process, some have proposed allowing no debate on an underlying bill
or resolution once the Senate has agreed to an amendment in the nature of a substitute.40 Such a
change would avoid the additional floor time expended in the final cloture process, which
proponents of a change deem an unnecessary use of time because the pending text of the
underlying measure does not now differ from the amendment on which cloture was already
invoked.41

37 In addition, although motions to instruct conferees in the Senate are rare, the threat to delay action by offering
multiple debatable motions to instruct could be reduced by limiting the number of such motions that are in order or
limiting debate on the motions and amendments thereto.
38 For more detailed analysis of the procedural implications of using amendment exchange to resolve differences
between the chambers, see CRS Report R41003, Amendments Between the Houses: Procedural Options and Effects, by
Elizabeth Rybicki.
39 The interpretation of germaneness in the post-cloture environment is quite narrow; it is thus not uncommon for a
substitute amendment—even on the same topic as the underlying bill—to be non-germane.
40 See S.Res. 12 (112th Congress), for example.
41 Others have offered alternative proposals for achieving the same goal—e.g., a rules change that would deem any
committee substitute amendment per se germane under cloture so that the initial cloture process (on the substitute
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

Broaden Application of Two-speech Rule to Nominations
As an alternative means of restricting debate in certain circumstances, some have suggested
broadening the scope of Senate Rule XIX, paragraph 1, to apply its provisions to a subset of
Senate business known as “executive business” (i.e., treaties and nominations). The rule says, in
part, “no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same
legislative day, without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.”
Enforcement of this limitation has generally not been useful to those seeking to bring a measure
to a vote, because each Senator may make two speeches on any “question.” Many such separate
questions are routine when considering legislation, such as debating a first degree amendment, or
a second degree amendment (to the first degree amendment), or any procedural question. Each
Senator would get two speeches on each of those questions, each of unlimited length, and,
therefore, a determined opposition would have numerous opportunities to block a final
disposition of the matter at hand.
The same is not true, however, for nominations. No amendment is in order when considering
nominations, and the Senate may not attach any conditions to the confirmation of a nomination,
so the number of “questions” that would arise would necessarily be more limited than during
consideration of legislation. Senate precedents, however, would need to be re-interpreted in order
to apply the two-speech rule to executive business. The key phrase in the rule as applied to
nominations is “the same legislative day.”
There are several methods the Senate uses to keep track of passing time. One is a calendar day,
where time is measured based on the calendar system and is not altered; one day, under this
system, is a calendar day.42 The Senate in other contexts, however, measures time in legislative
days: the time elapsed since the last adjournment (rather than recess) of the Senate. A new
legislative day is triggered only by an adjournment of the Senate. When the majority leader
chooses to recess the Senate from day to day, the legislative day remains the date the Senate met
following the last Senate adjournment, while the calendar day continues on. It is possible,
therefore, for the Senate to be meeting on the calendar day of May 20, while recording the
legislative day as May 8. After an adjournment, the legislative day resets to the current calendar
day, but the two only remain the same as long as the Senate continues to adjourn each day.43
The possibility of one legislative day spanning several calendar days can have an impact on the
application of the two-speech rule, which counts time in legislative days. For example, if the
Senate did not adjourn but, instead, recessed each day between January 5 and January 9 (such that
all of these days remained the legislative day of January 5), any Senator who had made two
speeches on January 5 on an amendment, could be prevented (on a point of order) from speaking
again on the amendment during any of these subsequent days.

(...continued)
amendment) would be unnecessary. Finally, the rules could instead be changed to make non-debatable any bill to
which an amendment in the nature of a substitute has been agreed (thus not requiring an additional cloture process).
42 Calendar days are used for some Senate calculations, such as counting the two days of Senate session that a cloture
petition must lay over, for example.
43 In 1980, for example, the legislative day in the Senate remained January 5, while the calendar day reached June 12
before a Senate adjournment.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

The two-speech limitation, under Senate precedents, however, applies differently to executive
business; it is a restriction only on a calendar day because a legislative day has been interpreted
not to apply to executive business.44 So, for example, if a Senator used her two speeches on a
nominee during Monday’s session of the Senate, she would be entitled to two additional speeches
on Tuesday, regardless of whether the Senate adjourned or recessed at the end of Monday’s
session. To make the two-speech rule applicable to executive business could require a change in
Senate standing rules, but it possibly also could be achieved by a ruling from the chair,
particularly a ruling that is subsequently endorsed by a vote of the Senate.
It is not clear that this change would necessarily save the Senate time when debating a
controversial nomination. If the majority leader did not have 60 votes to invoke cloture and move
to a confirmation vote on a nomination, however, but decided it was worth spending potentially
significant Senate floor time, the two-speech rule theoretically could provide a mechanism where
a majority of the Senate could, eventually, be able to get to a final vote. The mechanics of the rule
also could be difficult, such as deciding what constitutes a “speech”45 and how managers of the
nomination on the floor for both parties would be treated (as well as the leadership, who typically
speak on multiple occasions on a question), and who would keep track of the number of speeches
given by each Senator on each nomination.
Increase Procedural Burdens Borne by Opponents of Cloture
Many Senators who support changing the operation of cloture are chiefly concerned with the
level of costs associated with threatening (or of conducting) a filibuster. These Senators advocate
requiring those who desire to prevent action by the Senate on a question to hold the floor and
make their opposition known and even perhaps to speak to prevent final action by the Senate on
the question.
A recent set of proposals discussed earlier seeks to allow supporters of a matter, under certain
circumstances, to move cloture much more quickly than is typical under Rule XXII.46
Specifically, once a cloture motion has been filed and the time for first degree amendments has
passed, the proposal would allow the majority leader to move that the Senate vote on cloture if no
Senator sought recognition to speak. One goal of the proposal, supporters argue, is to make those
opposed to final action on a question hold the floor and speak, which might require at least some
of those Senators to stay close to the floor to prevent the majority leader from using this
mechanism to shorten the layover period for cloture. Under the current proposal, this idea also
would apply to the possible 30 hours of post-cloture debate time, but only on nominations and
motions to proceed (though there is no reason that the concept could not be applied to a broader
variety of questions).
This proposal also envisions a parliamentary scenario that would allow the presiding officer to
rule out dilatory motions and quorum calls in the period after a cloture motion is filed but before
its disposition. The presiding officer is already permitted such power in a post-cloture
environment, pursuant to existing provisions of Rule XXII. Interpretation of such a proposal may,

44 Riddick’s, p. 714.
45 See Riddick’s, pp. 783-785 for a discussion of what has been judged to qualify as a speech under the rule.
46 See S.Res. 9 (112th Congress) and S.Res. 465 (111th Congress).
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

if adopted, rely on the large body of precedents on dilatory actions developed for post-cloture
procedure and apply them to the earlier period while the cloture petition is ripening.47
Along the same lines are proposals designed to make it harder for opponents of a measure or
matter to use routine quorum calls to use up time at any point in the process; this would be
accomplished by specifically linking certain quorum calls to a so-called “snap” vote. Under
current rules and precedents, if a Senator notices the absence of a quorum, the presiding officer
instructs the clerk to call the roll.48 Typically, this is done to provide time for the next Senator
who wishes to speak to reach the floor, and it routinely ends when the Senate agrees, by
unanimous consent, to dispose of the call of the roll. This back and forth occurs routinely every
day the Senate is in session.
If the quorum call is not lifted by the time the clerk reads the last name, however, the quorum
becomes a “live” one. This means that to allow the Senate to stay in session, a majority of
Senators must register their presence (technically through a vote on a subsequent motion);
alternatively, the Senate may adjourn. Some proposals to change the cloture rule would use this
procedure to shorten the length of time spent on the layover period for a cloture motion. If any
quorum call were to “go live,” an automatic (presumably early) vote on invoking cloture would
be triggered. Similarly, the same technique could be used to obtain a vote on the question if
cloture were invoked and another quorum call was allowed to go live. Such a proposal also could
be modified to say that the automatic vote would occur only after a specified number of quorum
calls or after the Senate had expended a certain amount of time in quorum calls.
A related recent proposal also sought to address these rules and practices that allow opponents of
a measure or matter to delay or prevent a vote with relative ease.49 It proposed to create an
“extended debate” session, which the Senate could enter after a (less than three-fifths) majority
voted to invoke cloture. During this session, Senators could prevent a vote on the main question
only by talking, but not by forcing the majority to attend to keep a quorum or to vote. The
proposal provided disincentives for the use of quorum calls and also would have allowed the
majority leader to postpone votes that could occur during the extended debate session, thereby
forcing opponents to commit time to floor debate without necessarily requiring supporters of the
measure to bear the burden of remaining in attendance responding to quorum calls.
Other proposals do not focus either on changes that would require opponents of cloture to speak
on the floor or on new prohibitions on opponents’ use of certain motions or quorum calls. Instead,
these ideas seek to increase the procedural burden borne by opponents of cloture by changing the
voting threshold for cloture such that its invocation would directly depend, in part, on the number
of Senators voting against it. Specifically, one recent proposal would have provided that cloture
would be invoked by a simple majority as long as less than 41% of the Senate (chosen and sworn)

47 As an alternative to prohibiting dilatory quorum calls post-cloture, past suggestions have proposed that any time
consumed by a quorum call after cloture count against the time for debate guaranteed to the Senator who noted the
absence of a quorum.
48 Under certain conditions, quorum calls may be ruled dilatory by the chair in the post-cloture environment. See
Riddick’s, pp. 314-318.
49 See S.Res. 21 (112th Congress), which embodies what some refer to as a “talking filibuster” proposal. (In addition,
although S.Res. 10 (112th), as introduced, did not include these elements, it was amended to include provisions from
S.Res. 21, prior to the Senate vote on it.) Note that S.Res. 24 (112th Congress) mirrored the procedural changes
proposed in S.Res. 21 (112th), as introduced, but was framed as a standing order, not as a proposed change to the Senate
standing rules.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

voted against cloture, while another proposed that simple majority could invoke cloture unless
two-fifths of the Senate (typically 40) or more voted against cloture.50 Under the current rule
requiring three-fifths of Senators to invoke cloture, 41 Senators (if 100 Senators vote) can oppose
and thereby prevent the invocation of cloture, even by not voting at all. Under the change
proposals, 41 opponents of cloture, in one case (or 40, in the other) would need to vote to prevent
its invocation; if a sufficient number of opponents do not vote, cloture is invoked as long as more
Senators vote for cloture than against it.
Other Related Issues
Other proposals to change the operation of cloture do not involve new or altered Senate rules on
cloture, but rather, focus on more vigorous enforcement of existing rules. In addition, the use of
“holds”—although not explicitly addressed by the cloture rule—is an associated practice that has
been the subject of proposals to alter the operation of the cloture process. One final idea
unaddressed by the previous discussion involves proposals to delay or sunset the operation of any
rules changes adopted.
Altering the Practice of Extended Debate under Existing Rules
There are a number of Senate rules and precedents which, if enforced or used differently by the
Senate, could provide means to limit debate in some circumstances.
The two-speech limit in Rule XIX, explained earlier, for example, could be routinely enforced
during debate on legislation. If the majority leader recessed the Senate each night, instead of
adjourning it, then each Senator would be limited to two speeches on the pending business before
the Senate (not including executive business). There are significant hurdles to this idea, not the
least of which is the enormous record-keeping task this could present for Senate floor staff as well
as questions over what constitutes a “speech.” In addition, each Senator gets two speeches for
each question at hand, so it might lead to more complex parliamentary situations where a Senator
makes repeated, different motions to obtain an additional two speeches on the underlying issue.51
Another tool available is the precedent that allows the presiding officer, if no Senator seeks
recognition, to put the pending question to the Senate without any further consideration.52
Although this tool is currently used by presiding officers in some circumstances,53 its use could
be increased.54 A determined opposition, of course, could counter this strategy by positioning a
Senator on the floor who would be able to gain recognition to prevent the question from being
put, if need be.

50 See S.Res. 440 (111th Congress) and S.Res. 13 (112th Congress), respectively.
51 In current practice, Senators very infrequently raise a point of order to enforce this rule, presumably in the interests
of collegiality, comity, and flexibility. There are contradictory precedents on the application of the two-speech rule to
the period after cloture is invoked (Riddick’s, pp. 305, 782.)
52 Riddick’s, p. 716.
53 See for example, “Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010,” debate in the Senate, Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 153, August 3, 2009, p. S
8651.
54 The Levin-McCain proposal referenced earlier seeks an informal understanding among Senators that the presiding
officer should more frequently put the pending question to a vote as long as the majority leader or bill manager has
given Senators advance notice.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

A combination of the enhanced enforcement of the two-speech rule and the putting of the
question by the chair could also be used to try and foreclose extended debate, particularly if the
majority leader decided to hold extended Senate sessions, reaching into the night or perhaps
overnight. This approach may require the opposition to defend its position and take to the floor
from time to time to preclude a vote, but the costs of staying in session are still largely borne by
the majority party, because the majority would need to be present (relatively near to the floor) to
ensure a quorum is available to do business and to vote on the question, when put to the Senate.55
Finally, there have been proposals to require that debate and amendments be germane to the
pending business before the Senate. Currently, there is no general germaneness requirement for
amendments (except in the post-cloture period); debate must be germane to the measure or matter
before the Senate only for the first three hours of debate each calendar day. The ability of a
Senator to speak extemporaneously about anything for as long as she wants, regardless of what is
pending, is a central feature of the Senate and changes to it would seem to face long odds.56
Altering the Effect of “Holds”
The Senate has usually understood holds to be notifications by Senators to their floor leaders,
sometimes on a confidential basis, of an intent to object to the consideration of an item of
business. Their effectiveness depends on Senate rules that place no limits on debate of most
questions (absent unanimous consent or cloture). As a result, fashioning a mechanism that limits
the use of holds is difficult, because even if a hold is not made public, it may represent a potential
threat to filibuster an action, and for that reason may effectively deter attempts to call up or
consider an item of business.
Senate standing rules do not currently address the practice of holds, and regulating them does not
necessarily require amendment of Rule XXII. To the extent that a hold often indicates a threat to
subject a measure or matter to extended debate, however, proposals to reduce the effects of
extended debate (by addressing, for example, mechanisms by which a simple or supermajority
may expedite consideration) often include proposals addressing holds.57
In recent Congresses, the Senate has twice agreed to establish some procedures governing the use
of holds, though in neither case did it amend its standing rules. In the 110th Congress, Congress
created, in statute (Section 512 of P.L. 110-81), that an objection on the floor by any Senator, on
another Senator’s behalf, to a unanimous consent request to proceed to an item of business, would
under certain circumstances to trigger the identification (in a designated section of the appropriate
Senate calendar and in the Congressional Record) of the Senator on whose behalf objection was
made.58 In the 111th Congress, there were proposals formally submitted and informally discussed

55 Besides the immediate costs of maintaining a quorum, an additional cost to a majority wanting to end debate is that
the time spent in floor consideration on one measure may delay Senate action on other matters. If a sufficient
supermajority (e.g., three-fifths of Senators) wants to end consideration of a question, use of the cloture process often
will take less floor time that requiring opponents to hold the floor (even under enhanced enforcement of rules limiting
the number of speeches for each Senator).
56 For additional information on previous debate change proposals, see archived CRS Report RL32149, Proposals to
Amend the Senate Cloture Rule, by Christopher M. Davis and Betsy Palmer.
57 Conversely, those wanting to better regulate holds or alter their effects likely would need to focus attention on
changes to Rule XXII and/or other rules that govern the mechanisms by which the Senate proceeds to consider a
question.
58 See CRS Report RL34255, Senate Policy on “Holds”: Action in the 110th Congress, by Walter J. Oleszek, for
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

to enhance the regulation (and/or limit the effect) of holds, especially those placed confidentially
(so-called secret holds). Some of the proposals were modeled on the hold directive found in P.L.
110-81 and sought to address some perceived limitations of these existing statutory provisions,
but none were agreed to in the 111th Congress.59 Such proposals were also introduced in the 112th
Congress or included as an element of other proposals to change the operation of cloture.60 One
such proposal—S.Res. 28—was adopted as a new standing order in January 2011, establishing a
new process by which an objection to proceeding to a measure or matter on behalf of another
Senator triggers a requirement for notice to be placed in the Record and in the designated section
of the appropriate Senate calendar).
In sum, to the extent that a hold on a measure by even one Senator may mean that a successful
cloture process is necessary to proceed to the bill (and in some cases, also, to end debate on it and
amendments to it), any efforts to limit the impact of holds should be assessed within the context
of proposals to change the operation of cloture in the Senate.
Opportunities for Amending
In recent Congresses, attention has been paid to the extent to which amending opportunities have
been available during consideration of a measure. Some Senators have focused their concerns on
the frequency with which the majority leader “fills the amendment tree”—that is, offers a series
of amendatory motions such that opportunities for other Senators to make additional amendments
pending are (at least temporarily) limited.61 Others have expressed concern that individual
Senators have become more willing to object to unanimous consent requests that would allow
more amendments to become simultaneously pending, or to otherwise constrain the ability of bill
managers to negotiate packages of “cleared” amendments.62 These concerns can be both directly
and indirectly linked to the operation of cloture. For instance, Senators concerned that amending
opportunities will be limited may be inclined to oppose proceeding to the bill at all without

(...continued)
details. Also see CRS Report RL31685, Proposals to Reform “Holds” in the Senate, by Walter J. Oleszek, for more
explanation of the current debate over holds.
59 For example, S.Res. 502 (111th Congress) proposed additions to Rule VII that closely mirror some existing
provisions of P.L. 110-81, chiefly by requiring Senators to submit their notices of intent (and explanations thereof) after
objection is lodged on their behalf, but in a shorter time-frame than is provided for by P.L. 110-81. An altered version
of this proposal—which includes an additional provision identifying as the “holder” any Senator who objects on behalf
of an anonymous colleague to a floor unanimous consent request—was offered to other measures considered on the
floor in the 111th Congress. See, for example, S.Amdt. 4183 to H.R. 4899 (111th) and S.Amdt. 4019 to S. 3217 (111th).
Another proposal in the 111th sought to establish a new Senate standing rule on hold s that would have required
disclosure in the Congressional Record by any Senator who either has given his or her party leader a notice of intent to
object to proceed to a matter or has indicated publicly such intent on the Senate floor; the proposal also sought to
reduce the extent to which certain holds effectively preclude floor consideration of a measure or matter; see S.Res. 440
(111th).
60 S.Res. 10 (112th) included a proposal to prohibit a Senator from objecting on behalf of another unnamed Senator. The
Levin-McCain proposal referenced earlier also seeks in formal agreement among all Senators that leaders and bill
managers will not “honor” holds unless the objecting Senator voices objection on the floor (with reasonable notice) and
will expect a Senator to object on the floor to any unanimous consent requests that he or she opposes (by the next day,
with “appropriate notice”).
61 For additional detail and explanation, see CRS Report RS22854, Filling the Amendment Tree in the Senate, by
Christopher M. Davis.
62 See for instance, remarks by Senator Dorgan, during consideration of S. 3217 (111th). Congressional Record, daily
edition, May 18, 2010, pp. S3670-S3673.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

assurances about such opportunities, thereby potentially increasing the need to use a cloture
process on motions to proceed (a dynamic that is at the root of many proposals to limit debate on
such motions). In addition, to the extent that negotiations over the offering of amendments often
are reduced to the challenges the Senate faces in coming to a final vote on a pending question
(including an amendment), proposals to make it easier to invoke cloture (or make it harder to
sustain a filibuster) inherently implicate the leverage that Senators have in the floor amending
process.
Since the current practices surrounding the right to extended debate have been linked to the
argument that amending opportunities for Senators have been limited in recent years,63 some
proposals to change the operation of cloture have included provisions that address this aspect of
Senate floor procedure.64 Some recent proposals on changing the operation of cloture have
addressed this issue by guaranteeing to each party the ability to offer a set number of
amendments;65 proponents of these provisions argue that such a guarantee could potentially
alleviate the concerns of those Senators who now might block or seek to delay the Senate’s
consideration of a matter due to uncertainty over amending opportunities later. Another proposal
instead would establish a non-debatable motion by which individual Senators could—with the
agreement of a majority of voting Senators—be allowed to offer a germane amendment when it is
otherwise not in order (due to an already-pending amendment).66
Effective Dates for Change Proposals
Proposed changes to the operation of cloture often raise concerns that one party may be more
advantaged by the changes than the other, especially because they typically involve some
reduction of leverage to those opposing an end to debate (in most circumstances, a group
dominated by the minority party). To address this concern, many supporters propose to make
changes effective at some date in the future—perhaps in a future Congress when the identity of
the majority party is as yet unknown. Others have suggested instead to provide that any changes
are effective for only a short period, as a way to assess any unanticipated changes that may result
without binding the Senate to the changes (because rules changes, as mentioned above, tend to
become entrenched).67 This latter approach often seems to opponents, however, to be a way of

63 On January 27, 2011, majority leader Harry Reid and minority leader Mitch McConnell conducted a colloquy on the
Senate floor during which the majority leader pledged to use the procedural option of filling the amendment tree
“infrequently” in the 112th Congress (2011-2012). In the same colloquy, the minority leader pledged to “ ... use our
procedural options with discretion.” Both floor leaders further pledged to do all they could to see that Senators in their
respective party caucuses respected the terms of the colloquy. According to Senators Reid and McConnell, this
informal agreement was entered into, “in the interests of comity and [a] more open process in the Senate.”
Congressional Record, daily edition, vol. 157, Jan. 27, 2011, p. S325.
64 In past Congresses, Senators have introduced proposals focused only on the amending process, aimed specifically at
prohibited the majority leader from “filing the amendment tree.” (See, for example, S.Res. 12, 111th Congress.) Only
proposals that include amending changes within the context of other proposed changes to the operation of cloture are
referenced in this report.
65 See S.Res. 8 (112th Congress). The Levin-McCain proposal referenced earlier would address this issue by linking a
four hour debate limit on certain motions to proceed to a modified amendment process. Specifically, the proposal seeks
to allow four amendments (one for each party leader and each bill manager) on a measure brought up under this debate-
limited motion to proceed.
66 See S.Res. 10 (112th Congress).
67 The Levin-McCain informal proposal discussed earlier states that it would include a “sunset” provision such that, if
adopted, it would only apply to the 113th Congress.
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

assuring any benefits of the change accrue to the present majority party while preventing their
accrual to a different party in the future.
Procedures for Changing Senate Rules and Practices
Each proposal to change the operation of cloture discussed above does not necessarily require a
change in Senate standing rules. For example, some rely only on changes in Senate practices, and
some propose a series of steps on the Senate floor that could establish new precedents. Many
proposals do, however, require a rules change.
A change to Senate standing rules could be accomplished via adoption of a simple resolution
making specified rules changes, though standing rules changes can also be accomplished through
provisions of a statutory measure (e.g., pursuant to an amendment to legislation adopted on the
floor).68 Once a simple resolution is on the Calendar of Business (typically after having been
reported by committee), it could be brought before the Senate by unanimous consent or by a
debatable motion to proceed.69
Once a rules change is under consideration on the Senate floor, it could be subject to extended
debate; a cloture process may be necessary to end debate and allow for a final vote on adoption.
As noted earlier, pursuant to changes made in 1975 to Rule XXII, cloture on a proposal to change
the standing rules requires a two-thirds threshold of those present and voting. This provision
makes it difficult to make changes in the standing rules of the Senate and contributes to the so-
called entrenchment of Senate rules, as discussed earlier.
It is again worth noting that Senate procedure is governed not only by the standing rules and the
precedents interpreting them, but also by the Constitution, standing orders,70 the rule-making
provisions of certain statutes that provide for procedures outside of the provisions of the standing
rules (e.g., the Congressional Budget Act),71 and practice. Changes to Senate procedures
accomplished through these other mechanisms—for example, through adoption of a new standing
order or enactment of statutory provisions that do not amend the standing rules—do not fall under
the Rule XXII requirement that cloture on a rules change obtain a two-thirds affirmative vote.
These options, however, would still be subject to the lower (but still supermajority) threshold of

68 Rule V requires one day’s notice (in writing) of any attempt to modify or amend any Senate standing rule.
69 A proposal for the Senate to consider a simple resolution immediately upon introduction can be objected to; in this
case, the resolution lays over for one day (under Rule XIV) and would be laid before the Senate during morning hour
on the next legislative day—a context that make proceeding to the resolution prohibitively complicated.
70 Standing orders are non-statutory regulations on Senate procedure that are not embraced in the standing rules, but
that nonetheless, can govern Senate business. Standing orders are simple resolutions (i.e., matters with an S.Res.
designation) that—like Senate rules—continue to be in effect across Congresses. Two resolutions in the 112th
Congress—S.Res. 28 (referenced earlier in relation to holds) and S.Res. 29 (which establishes a motion for waiving the
reading of certain pre-printed amendments)—were recently adopted as standing orders. Other examples of standing
orders in current effect are those that establish certain non-standing committees (e.g., Senate Select Committee on
Intelligence), provide extra jurisdiction to a standing committee (e.g., the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs), provide detailed regulations on the travel expenses of Senators, and govern certain ceremonial
aspects of Senate activity. The aforementioned Levin-McCain informal proposal is framed as a standing order, as well,
rather than as a change to the Senate standing rules.
71 For more detail and examples, see CRS Report RS20234, Expedited or “Fast-Track” Legislative Procedures, by
Christopher M. Davis.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate

three-fifths to end debate. Changes accomplished via a new statutory provision, of course, would
also require House—and potentially presidential—approval for enactment.

Author Contact Information

Christopher M. Davis
Valerie Heitshusen
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process
cmdavis@crs.loc.gov, 7-0656
vheitshusen@crs.loc.gov, 7-8635




Acknowledgments
Betsy Palmer, former Analyst on Congress and the Legislative Process at CRS, also co-authored an earlier
version of this report.

Congressional Research Service
21

---