112th Congress

1st Session " COMMITTEE PRINT ! S. Prt.

112–31

SENATE CLOTURE RULE

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE

SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

and

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PARAGRAPH 2

OF RULE XXII OF THE STANDING RULES

OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE

(CLOTURE RULE)

Congressional Research Service

Library of Congress

Printed for the Use of the

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

UNITED STATES SENATE

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

66–046 WASHINGTON : 2011
(II)

COMMITTEE ON RULES AND ADMINISTRATION

CHARLES E. SCHUMER, New York, Chairman

DANIEL K. INOUYE, Hawaii

DIANNE FEINSTEIN, California

RICHARD J. DURBIN, Illinois 

E. BENJAMIN NELSON, Nebraska

PATTY MURRAY, Washington

MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas

TOM UDALL, New Mexico

MARK WARNER, Virginia

PATRICK LEAHY, Vermont 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

MITCH MCCONNELL, Kentucky

THAD COCHRAN, Mississippi 

KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas

SAXBY CHAMBLISS, Georgia

PAT ROBERTS, Kansas

RICHARD SHELBY, Alabama

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

JEAN PARVIN BORDEWICH, Staff Director

MARY SUIT JONES, Republican Staff Director

ADAM D. AMBROGI, Chief Counsel

MICHAEL MERRELL, Republican Elections Counsel

Available via the World Wide Web:

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CPRT-112SPRT66046/pdf/CPRT-112SPRT66046.pdf
(III)

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE,

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS,

Washington, DC, December 5, 2011.

Hon. CHARLES SCHUMER,

Chairman, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration,

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

DEAR MR. CHAIRMAN: I am pleased to submit to you the update 

requested by the Rules Committee of its print on the cloture rule 

of the United States Senate. This edition extends, through the fi nal 

adjournment of the 110th Congress in 2008, the information on the 

development and use of the cloture rule that was contained in the 

1985 edition of this print, the most recent previous version of the 

document. 

New to this edition is extensive information on changes in the cloture rule, and proposals to change the rule, since 1985, as well as a 

revised and more complete treatment of the important 1975 amendment to the rule. The bibliography has also been comprehensively 

revised and extended. In addition, this edition also offers several 

substantial improvements in the format of information presented. 

In particular, the items added for this edition to the brief descriptions of selected outstanding fi libusters are presented in a more systematic format that, for the fi rst time, uniformly includes measure 

numbers, length of consideration, and identifi cation of the policy 

questions at issue, major procedural events, and outcomes. Finally, 

the table of cloture votes from earlier editions has been replaced by 

full information on the disposition of each cloture motion since the 

adoption of the cloture rule in 1917, whether or not voted on, including specifi c identifi cation of the items of business to which they were 

addressed. This new and more comprehensive table was drawn from 

the database now maintained by the Senate Library, which worked 

as a partner on this project.

The preparation of this revision, as of its recent predecessors, was 

undertaken by the Government and Finance Division of the Congressional Research Service. Richard S. Beth coordinated the entire 

project with assistance from Betsy Palmer. Descriptions of proposals 

to change the cloture rule, proceedings when the rule was amended, 

and instances of extended debate in the Senate were prepared by 

analytical staff of CRS including Dr. Beth, Ms. Palmer, Christopher 

M. Davis, Valerie Heitshusen, Elizabeth Rybicki, James V. Saturno, 

Matthew Eric Glassman, Momoko Soltis, and Jessica Tollestrup. 

The project also drew on descriptions of extended debates prepared 

in earlier years by CRS staff, under the direction of Dr. Beth and 
IV

with the assistance of Stanley I. Bach, including Mr. Saturno, Kevin 

Coleman, Paul Dwyer, Matthew Ginsburg, Leslie Gladstone, Steve 

Rutkus, James Sayler, Barbara Schwemle, Stephanie Smith, Sandy 

Streeter, Lorraine Tong, Suzanne Cavanagh, and Richard Sachs. Additional data in support of the project were compiled by Faye Bullock, Joe Dalaker, Robert Elam, Lori Beth Hutchison, Jackie Jones, 

and Carole McGeehan.

Jennifer E. Manning of the Knowledge Services Group of CRS 

prepared the completely revised bibliography, with the aid of Jamie 

Navarette, Meghan Krueger, and earlier work by George Walser. 

Technical assistance to the overall project was provided by Nicole 

Palmer and Jennifer Scrafford, and the project was reviewed by Clay 

Wellborn and Cortney Dell. The historical table of data on cloture 

motions and their dispositions was generated from the database on 

these motions developed and maintained by Zoe Davis, head of the 

Senate Library’s Reference & Information Services, with assistance 

from Brian McLaughlin, also of that offi ce. Senate Webmaster Arin 

Shapiro, provided technical support, along with Betty Koo and Liz 

Horrell, also of the Senate’s Offi ce of Web Technology.

Since the Committee last issued a revised edition of this document, numerous events have indicated continued interest in the role 

and regulation of debate in the Senate. Particularly in the 111th 

Congress, hearings held by your Committee on Examining the Filibuster (S. Hrg. 111–706, 111th Congress, 2nd session), which focused 

on the use of the cloture rule and the issue of fi libusters on the Senate fl oor, showed a high level of continuing interest in the subject 

from Senators, staff, political scientists, and the public. Previously, 

among the most prominent of these events have been the Senate’s 

amendment of paragraph 2 of Rule XXII in the 99th Congress, fl oor 

consideration of further amendments to Senate Rules regulating 

debate in the 104th, 108th, and 112th Congresses, discussions and 

recommendations by the Senate members of the Joint Committee on 

the Organization of Congress in the 103rd Congress, and hearings 

on related questions by your Committee in the 100th, 103rd, and 

111th Congresses, as well as by the Senate Committee on the Judiciary in the 108th Congress. Over the same period, as well, outside 

interest in these questions has been highlighted by the publication, 

after a lapse of several decades, of several new scholarly studies of 

extended debate and cloture in the Senate by political scientists. 

It is because of this continuing interest in debate and cloture that 

I am particularly pleased to transmit this latest revision of the print 

to the Committee, in the anticipation that it will serve as a useful 

resource to the Senate as it continues to address questions related 

to its cloture rule.

 Sincerely, 

MARY MAZANEC, Director.
(V)

C O N T E N T S

Page

LETTER OF SUBMITTAL ................................................................................................. III

PART 1

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES .................................... 1

Standing Rules relating to debate................................................................... 3

Chronological history of efforts to limit debate in the Senate ...................... 11

Selected outstanding Senate fi libusters, 1841–2008 ..................................... 43

Disposition of cloture motions, 1917–2008 ..................................................... 113

Filibusters and cloture in the United States Senate: A select bibliography ..... 159

PART 2

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXII OF THE STANDING RULES OF THE

UNITED STATES SENATE (CLOTURE RULE) ................................................................. 183

The Cloture Rule (The “Martin Resolution”) .................................................. 185

The 1949 amendment ....................................................................................... 189

The 1959 amendment ....................................................................................... 193

The 1975 amendment ....................................................................................... 199

The 1976 amendment ....................................................................................... 209

The 1979 amendment ....................................................................................... 211

The 1986 amendment ....................................................................................... 221

PART 1

LIMITATION OF DEBATE IN THE SENATE OF THE

UNITED STATES

A COMPENDIUM, INCLUDING A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

(September 30, 2011)

(3)

STANDING RULES RELATING TO DEBATE

RULE VI—QUORUM—ABSENT SENATORS MAY BE SENT FOR

 * * * * * * *

3. If, at any time during the daily sessions of the Senate, a question shall be raised by any Senator as to the presence of a quorum, 

the Presiding Offi cer shall forthwith direct the Secretary to call the 

roll and shall announce the result, and these proceedings shall be 

without debate.

4. Whenever upon such roll call it shall be ascertained that a quorum is not present, a majority of the Senators present may direct 

the Sergeant at Arms to request, and, when necessary, to compel the 

attendance of the absent Senators, which order shall be determined 

without debate; and pending its execution, and until a quorum shall 

be present, no debate nor motion, except to adjourn, or to recess 

pursuant to a previous order entered by unanimous consent, shall 

be in order.

RULE VII—MORNING BUSINESS

 * * * * * * *

3. The Presiding Offi cer may at any time lay, and it shall be in order at any time for a Senator to move to lay, before the Senate, any 

bill or other matter sent to the Senate by the President or the House 

of Representatives for appropriate action allowed under the rules 

and any question pending at that time shall be suspended for this 

purpose. Any motion so made shall be determined without debate.

4. Petitions or memorials shall be referred, without debate, to the 

appropriate committee according to subject matter on the same basis 

as bills and resolutions, if signed by the petitioner or memorialist. 

A question of receiving or reference may be raised and determined 

without debate. But no petition or memorial or other paper signed 

by citizens or subjects of a foreign power shall be received, unless 

the same be transmitted to the Senate by the President.

 * * * * * * *

RULE VIII—ORDER OF BUSINESS

1. At the conclusion of the morning business at the beginning of 

a new legislative day, unless upon motion the Senate shall at any 

time otherwise order, the Senate shall proceed to the consideration 

of the Calendar of Bills and Resolutions, and shall continue such 

consideration until 2 hours after the Senate convenes on such day 

(the end of the morning hour); and bills and resolutions that are not 

objected to shall be taken up in their order, and each Senator shall 

be entitled to speak once and for fi ve minutes only upon any question; and an objection may be interposed at any stage of the proceed4

ings, but upon motion the Senate may continue such consideration; 

and this order shall commence immediately after the call for “other 

resolutions”, or after disposition of resolutions coming “over under 

the rule”, and shall take precedence of the unfi nished business and 

other special orders. But if the Senate shall proceed on motion with 

the consideration of any matter notwithstanding an objection, the 

foregoing provisions touching debate shall not apply.

2. All motions made during the fi rst two hours of a new legislative day to proceed to the consideration of any matter shall be 

determined without debate, except motions to proceed to the consideration of any motion, resolution, or proposal to change any of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate shall be debatable. Motions made after 

the fi rst two hours of a new legislative day to proceed to the consideration of bills and resolutions are debatable. 1

RULE X—SPECIAL ORDERS

1. Any subject may, by a vote of two-thirds of the Senators present, be made a special order of business for consideration and when 

the time so fi xed for its consideration arrives the Presiding Offi cer 

shall lay it before the Senate, unless there be unfi nished business in 

which case it takes its place on the Calendar of Special Orders in the 

order of time at which it was made special, to be considered in that 

order when there is no unfi nished business.

2. All motions to change such order, or to proceed to the consideration of other business, shall be decided without debate.

RULE XI—PAPERS—WITHDRAWAL, PRINTING, READING OF, AND

REFERENCE

 * * * * * * *

3. When the reading of a paper is called for, and objected to, it 

shall be determined by a vote of the Senate, without debate.

 * * * * * * *

RULE XII—VOTING PROCEDURE

1. When the yeas and nays are ordered, the names of Senators 

shall be called alphabetically; and each Senator shall, without debate, declare his assent or dissent to the question, unless excused by 

the Senate; and no Senator shall be permitted to vote after the decision shall have been announced by the Presiding Offi cer, but may for 

suffi cient reasons, with unanimous consent, change or withdraw his 

vote. No motion to suspend this rule shall be in order, nor shall the 

Presiding Offi cer entertain any request to suspend it by unanimous 

consent.

2. When a Senator declines to vote on call of his name, he shall be 

required to assign his reasons therefor, and having assigned them, 

the Presiding Offi cer shall submit the question to the Senate: “Shall 

the Senator for the reasons assigned by him, be excused from voting?” which shall be decided without debate; and these proceedings 

1 Under the precedents of the Senate, motions to proceed to consider veto messages, like those 

for other privileged matters, are not debatable. See “Vetoes” (including Article I, section 7, of the 

Constitution) and “Privileged Business” in Riddick’s Senate Procedure, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., 

1992, S. Doc. 101–28 (Washington: GPO, 1992), p. 1034–1037; 1381–1389.
5

shall be had after the roll call and before the result is announced; 

and any further proceedings in reference thereto shall be after such 

announcement.

 * * * * * * *

RULE XIII—RECONSIDERATION

 * * * * * * *

2. When a bill, resolution, report, amendment, order, or message, 

upon which a vote has been taken, shall have gone out of the possession of the Senate and been communicated to the House of Representatives, the motion to reconsider shall be accompanied by a motion 

to request the House to return the same; which last motion shall be 

acted upon immediately, and without debate, and if determined in 

the negative shall be a fi nal disposition of the motion to reconsider.

RULE XIV—BILLS, JOINT RESOLUTIONS, RESOLUTIONS, AND

PREAMBLES THERETO

 * * * * * * *

3. No bill or joint resolution shall be committed or amended until 

it shall have been twice read, after which it may be referred to a 

committee; bills and joint resolutions introduced on leave, and bills 

and joint resolutions from the House of Representatives, shall be 

read once, and may be read twice, if not objected to, on the same day 

for reference, but shall not be considered on that day nor debated, 

except for reference, unless by unanimous consent.

 * * * * * * *

RULE XV—AMENDMENTS AND MOTIONS

1. (a) An amendment and any instruction accompanying a motion to recommit shall be reduced to writing and read and identical 

copies shall be provided by the Senator offering the amendment or 

instruction to the desks of the Majority Leader and the Minority 

Leader before being debated.

(b) A motion shall be reduced to writing, if desired by the Presiding Offi cer or by any Senator, and shall be read before being debated.

 * * * * * * *

3. If the question in debate contains several propositions, any 

Senator may have the same divided, except a motion to strike out 

and insert, which shall not be divided; but the rejection of a motion 

to strike out and insert one proposition shall not prevent a motion 

to strike out and insert a different proposition; nor shall it prevent 

a motion simply to strike out; nor shall the rejection of a motion to 

strike out prevent a motion to strike out and insert. But pending a 

motion to strike out and insert, the part to be stricken out and the 

part to be inserted shall each be regarded for the purpose of amendment as a question, and motions to amend the part to be stricken 

out shall have precedence.
6

RULE XVI—APPROPRIATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO GENERAL

APPROPRIATIONS BILLS

 * * * * * * *

4. On a point of order made by any Senator, no amendment offered 

by any other Senator which proposes general legislation shall be received to any general appropriation bill, nor shall any amendment 

not germane or relevant to the subject matter contained in the bill 

be received; nor shall any amendment to any item or clause of such 

bill be received which does not directly relate thereto; nor shall any 

restriction on the expenditure of the funds appropriated which proposes a limitation not authorized by law be received if such restriction is to take effect or cease to be effective upon the happening of 

a contingency; and all questions of relevancy of amendments under 

this rule, when raised, shall be submitted to the Senate and be decided without debate; and any such amendment or restriction to a 

general appropriation bill may be laid on the table without prejudice 

to the bill.

 * * * * * * *

RULE XVII—REFERENCE TO COMMITTEES; MOTIONS TO DISCHARGE; 

REPORTS TO COMMITTEES; AND HEARINGS AVAILABLE

1. Except as provided in paragraph 3, in any case in which a controversy arises as to the jurisdiction of any committee with respect to 

any proposed legislation, the question of jurisdiction shall be decided 

by the Presiding Offi cer, without debate, in favor of the committee 

which has jurisdiction over the subject matter which predominates 

in such proposed legislation; but such decision shall be subject to an 

appeal.

 * * * * * * *

3. (a) Upon motion by both the majority leader or his designee 

and the minority leader or his designee, proposed legislation may 

be referred to two or more committees jointly or sequentially. Notice 

of such motion and the proposed legislation to which it relates shall 

be printed in the Congressional Record. The motion shall be privileged, but it shall not be in order until the Congressional Record 

in which the notice is printed has been available to Senators for at 

least twenty-four hours. No amendment to any such motion shall be 

in order except amendments to any instructions contained therein. 

Debate on any such motion, and all amendments thereto and debatable motions and appeals in connection therewith, shall be limited 

to not more than two hours, the time to be equally divided between, 

and controlled by, the majority leader and the minority leader or 

their designees.

 * * * * * * *

RULE XIX—DEBATE

1. (a) When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address 

the Presiding Offi cer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, 

and the Presiding Offi cer shall recognize the Senator who shall fi rst 
7

address him. 2 No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate 

without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall fi rst address 

the Presiding Offi cer, and 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.

(b) At the conclusion of the morning hour at the beginning of a 

new legislative day or after the unfi nished business or any pending 

business has fi rst been laid before the Senate on any calendar day, 

and until after the duration of three hours of actual session after 

such business is laid down except as determined to the contrary by 

unanimous consent or on motion without debate, all debate shall be 

germane and confi ned to the specifi c question then pending before 

the Senate.

2. No Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of 

words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct 

or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.

3. No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any State of the 

Union.

4. If any Senator, in speaking or otherwise, in the opinion of the 

Presiding Offi cer transgress the rules of the Senate the Presiding 

Offi cer shall, either on his own motion or at the request of any other 

Senator, call him to order; and when a Senator shall be called to order he shall take his seat, and may not proceed without leave of the 

Senate, which, if granted, shall be upon motion that he be allowed to 

proceed in order, which motion shall be determined without debate. 

Any Senator directed by the Presiding Offi cer to take his seat, and 

any Senator requesting the Presiding Offi cer to require a Senator to 

take his seat, may appeal from the ruling of the chair, which appeal 

shall be open to debate.

5. If a Senator be called to order for words spoken in debate, upon 

the demand of the Senator or of any other Senator, the exceptionable 

words shall be taken down in writing, and read at the table for the 

information of the Senate.

 * * * * * * *

RULE XX—QUESTIONS OF ORDER

1. A question of order may be raised at any stage of the proceedings, except when the Senate is voting or ascertaining the presence 

of a quorum, and, unless submitted to the Senate, shall be decided 

by the Presiding Offi cer without debate, subject to an appeal to the 

Senate. When an appeal is taken, any subsequent question of order 

which may arise before the decision of such appeal shall be decided 

by the Presiding Offi cer without debate; and every appeal therefrom 

shall be decided at once, and without debate; and any appeal may be 

laid on the table without prejudice to the pending proposition, and 

thereupon shall be held as affi rming the decision of the Presiding 

Offi cer.

 * * * * * * *

2 Under the precedents of the Senate, the Majority and Minority Floor Leaders are entitled to 

preferential recognition when they address the Chair simultaneously with other Senators. See 

“Recognition” in Riddick’s Senate Procedure, 1093, 1098–99.
8

RULE XXI—SESSION WITH CLOSED DOORS

 * * * * * * *

2. When the Senate meets in closed session, any applicable provisions of rules XXIX and XXXI, including the confi dentiality of information shall apply to any information and to the conduct of any 

debate transacted.

RULE XXII—PRECEDENCE OF MOTIONS

1. When a question is pending, no motion shall be received but—

To adjourn.

To adjourn to a day certain, or that when the Senate adjourn 

it shall be to a day certain.

To take a recess.

To proceed to the consideration of executive business.

To lay on the table.

To postpone indefi nitely.

To postpone to a day certain.

To commit.

To amend.

Which several motions shall have precedence as they stand arranged; and the motions relating to adjournment, to take a recess, 

to proceed to the consideration of executive business, to lay on the 

table, shall be decided without debate.

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any other 

rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, 

to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Offi cer, or clerk at the direction 

of the Presiding Offi cer, shall at once state the motion to the Senate, 

and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day 

but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate and direct that 

the clerk call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is 

present, the Presiding Offi cer shall, without debate, submit to the 

Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

“Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought to 

a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affi rmative by threefi fths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a measure 

or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary 

affi rmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the 

Senate, or the unfi nished business, shall be the unfi nished business 

to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more than 

one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending before 

the Senate, or the unfi nished business, the amendments thereto and 

motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the Presiding Offi cer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. Except by 

unanimous consent, no amendment shall be proposed after the vote 

to bring the debate to a close, unless it had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o’clock p.m. on the day following the 

fi ling of the cloture motion if an amendment in the fi rst degree, and 
9

unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture vote if an amendment in the second.

No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not 

germane shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Offi cer, shall 

be decided without debate.

After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, 

motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any question, to 

vote on the fi nal disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate at that time and 

to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand to establish the presence of a 

quorum (and motions required to establish a quorum) immediately 

before the fi nal vote begins. The thirty hours may be increased by 

the adoption of a motion, decided without debate, by a three-fi fths 

affi rmative vote of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any 

such time thus agreed upon shall be equally divided between and 

controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. 

However, only one motion to extend time, specifi ed above, may be 

made in any one calendar day.

If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture 

has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in order and 

may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the amendment’s 

sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited to lineation and 

pagination.

No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every 

other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.

Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may yield 

all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority fl oor managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the Majority or Minority 

Leader, but each Senator specifi ed shall not have more than two 

hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield such time to other 

Senators.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator who 

has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak only.

After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the proposed 

amendment has been identifi ed and has been available in printed 

form at the desk of the Members for not less than twenty-four hours.

RULE XXVIII—CONFERENCE COMMITTEES; REPORTS; OPEN MEETINGS

1. The presentation of reports of committees of conference shall 

always be in order when available on each Senator’s desk except 

when the Journal is being read or a question of order or a motion to 

adjourn is pending, or while the Senate is voting or ascertaining the 

presence of a quorum; and when received the question of proceeding 

to the consideration of the report, if raised, shall be immediately 

put, and shall be determined without debate.

 * * * * * * *
10

7. If time for debate in the consideration of any report of a committee of conference upon the fl oor of the Senate is limited, the time 

allotted for debate shall be equally divided between the majority 

party and the minority party.

 * * * * * * *
(11)

CHRONOLOGICAL HISTORY OF EFFORTS TO LIMIT 

DEBATE IN THE SENATE

In 1604, the practice of limiting debate in some form was introduced in the British Parliament by Sir Henry Vane. It became 

known in parliamentary procedure as the “previous question” and 

is described in Section 34 of Jefferson’s Manual of Parliamentary 

Practice, as follows:

When any question is before the House, any member may 

move a previous question, whether that question (called the 

main question) shall not be put. If it pass in the affi rmative, 

then the main question is to be put immediately, and no man 

may speak anything further to it, either to add or alter.

In 1778, the Journals of the Continental Congress also show that 

the “previous question” was used. Section 10 of the Rules of the Continental Congress states: “When a question is before the House no 

motion shall be received unless for an amendment, for the previous 

question, to postpone the consideration of the main question, or to 

commit it.” In the British Parliament and the Continental Congress 

the “previous question” was used to avoid discussion of a delicate 

subject or one which might have injurious consequences.

1789—The fi rst Senate adopted 20 rules of which the following relate to debate in, and taking the time of, the Senate:

 * * * * *

2. No member shall speak to another, or otherwise interrupt the business of the Senate, or read any printed 

paper while the Journals or public papers are reading, or 

when any Member is speaking in any debate.

3. Every Member, when he speaks, shall address the 

Chair, standing in his place, and when he has fi nished 

shall sit down.

4. No Member shall speak more than twice in any one 

debate on the same day, without leave of the Senate.

5. When two Members shall rise at the same time, the 

President shall name the person to speak; but in all cases 

the fi rst rising shall speak fi rst.

6. No motion shall be debated until the same shall be 

seconded.

 * * * * *

8. When a question is before the Senate, no motion 

shall be received unless for an amendment, for the previous question, or for postponing the main question, or to 

commit, or to adjourn.

9. The previous question being moved and seconded, 

the question from the Chair shall be: “Shall the main 

question be now put?” And if the nays prevail, the main 

question shall not then be put.
12

 * * * * *

11. When the yeas and nays shall be called for by onefi fth of the members present, each Member called upon 

shall, unless for special reasons he be excused by the 

Senate, declare, openly and without debate, his assent or 

dissent to the question.

 * * * * *

1806—When the Rules were modifi ed, reference to the previous 

question was omitted. It had seldom been used during the 17 

years from 1789 to 1806.

1807—Debate on an amendment at the third reading of a bill was 

forbidden. From this time until 1846 there were no further 

limitations on debate in the Senate.

1841—On July 12, Senator Henry Clay brought forth a proposal for 

the introduction of the “previous question,” which he stated 

was necessitated by the abuse which the minority had made of 

the privilege of unlimited debate. In opposing Senator Clay’s 

motion, Senator Calhoun said, “There never had been a body 

in this or any other country in which, for such a length of time, 

so much dignity and decorum of debate had been maintained.” 

Senator Clay’s proposition met with considerable opposition 

and was abandoned. Senator Clay also proposed adoption of 

the “hour rule” for the same purpose, but that proposal was 

also abandoned.

1846—Consideration of the Oregon bill prompted the use of a unanimous consent agreement to limit debate by fi xing a day for a 

vote. Since that time, such agreements have been used frequently to fi x an hour at which the Senate will vote, without 

further debate, on a pending proposal.

1850—On July 27, Senator Douglas submitted a resolution permitting the use of the “previous question.” The resolution was 

debated and laid on the table after considerable opposition 

had been expressed.

1862—As the business to be transacted by the Senate increased, 

proposals to limit debate were introduced frequently in the 

subsequent Congresses, but none was adopted until the Civil 

War. On January 21, Senator Wade introduced a resolution 

stating that “in consideration in secret session of subjects relating to the rebellion, debate should be confi ned to the subject matter and limited to fi ve minutes, except that fi ve minutes be allowed any member to explain or oppose a pertinent 

amendment.” On January 29, the resolution was debated and 

adopted.

1868—A rule was adopted providing that: “Motions to take up or to 

proceed to the consideration of any question shall be determined without debate, upon the merits of the question proposed to be considered.” The object of this rule, according to 

Senator Edmunds, was to prevent a practice which had developed in the Senate, “when a question was pending, and a 

Senator wished to deliver a speech on some other question, 

to move to postpone the pending order to deliver their [sic] 

speech on the other question.” According to Senator Trumbull 

the object of the rule was to prevent the consumption of time 

in debate over business to be taken up. The rule was inter13

preted as preventing debate on the merits of a question when 

a proposal to postpone it was made.

1869—A resolution pertaining to the adoption of the “previous question” was introduced.

1870—Three other resolutions limiting debate in some form were 

introduced in the fi rst half of the year.

1870—The Senate, on appeal, sustained decision of the Chair that a 

Senator may read in debate a paper that is irrelevant to the 

subject matter under consideration (July 14).

1870—On December 6, in the third session of the 41st Congress, 

Senator Anthony introduced the following resolution:

On Monday next, at one o’clock, the Senate will proceed to the consideration of the Calendar and bills that 

are not objected to shall be taken up in their order; and 

each Senator shall be entitled to speak once and for fi ve 

minutes, only, on each question; and this order shall be 

enforced daily at one o’clock till the end of the Calendar 

is reached, unless upon motion, the Senate should at any 

time otherwise order.

On the following day, December 7, the resolution was adopted. This so-called Anthony rule for the expedition of business 

was the most important limitation of debate yet adopted by 

the Senate. The rule was interpreted as placing no restraints 

upon the rights of individual Senators, however, inasmuch as 

a single objection could prevent its application to the subject 

under consideration. (Now Rule VIII).

1871—On February 22, another important motion was adopted 

which had been introduced by Senator Pomeroy and which 

allowed amendments to appropriation bills to be laid on the 

table without prejudice to the bill.

1872—The Senate established as a precedent that no Senator can be 

removed from the fl oor for irrelevancy in a debate. The precedent has remained in force to the present time.

1872—On April 19, a resolution was introduced, “that during the 

remainder of the session it should be in order, in the consideration of appropriation bills, to move to confi ne debate by any 

Senator, on the pending motion to fi ve minutes.” On April 29, 

this resolution was adopted, 33–13. The necessity for some 

limitation of debate to expedite action on these annual appropriations measures caused the adoption of similar resolutions 

at most of the succeeding sessions of Congress.

1873—In March, Senator Wright submitted a resolution reading in 

part that debate shall be confi ned to and be relevant to the 

subject matter before the Senate, and that the previous question may be demanded by a majority vote or in some modifi ed 

form. On a vote in the Senate to consider this resolution the 

nays were 30 and the yeas 25.

1879—The Chair counted a quorum to determine whether enough 

Senators were present to do business.

1880—From 1873 to 1880 nine other resolutions were introduced 

limiting debate in some form. On February 5, 1880, in the 

second session of the 46th Congress, the famous Anthony rule 

was made a standing rule of the Senate as Rule VIII. In explaining the rule, Senator Anthony said:
14

That rule applies only to the unobjected cases on the 

Calendar, so as to relieve the Calendar from the unobjected cases. There are a great many bills that no Senator 

objects to, but they are kept back in their order by disputed cases. If we once relieve the Calendar of unobjected 

cases, we can go through with it in order without any 

limitation of debate. That is the purpose of the proposed 

rule. It has been applied in several sessions and has been 

found to work well with the general approbation of the 

Senate.

1881—On February 16, a resolution to amend the Anthony rule was 

introduced. It proposed to require the objection of at least fi ve 

Senators to pass over a bill on the calendar. The resolution 

was objected to as a form of “previous question,” and defeated. 

Senator Edmunds in opposing the resolution said:

I would rather that not a single bill shall pass between 

now and the 4th day of March than to introduce into this 

body (which is the only one where there is free debate 

and the only one which can under its rules discuss freely 

measures of importance or otherwise) a provision which 

does in effect operate to carry a bill either to defeat or 

success with only a fi ve or fi fteen minutes’ debate and 

one or two Senators on a side speaking. I think it is of 

greater importance to the public interest, in the long run 

and in the short run, that every bill on your Calendar 

should fail than that any Senator should be cut off from 

the right of expressing his opinion and the grounds of it 

upon every measure that is to be voted upon here . . . .

1881—The Senate agreed that for the remainder of the session to 

limit debate to 15 minutes on a motion to consider a bill or 

resolution and that no Senator speak more than once or for 

longer than 5 minutes (February 12).

1882—On February 27, the Anthony rule was amended by the Senate, so that if the majority decided to take up a bill on the 

calendar after objection was made, the ordinary rules of debate without limitation would apply. The Anthony rule could 

only work when there was no objection whatever to any bill 

proposed for consideration. When the regular morning hour 

was not found suffi cient for the consideration of all unobjected 

cases on the calendar, special times were often set aside for 

the consideration of the calendar under the Anthony rule.

1882—On March 15, a rule was considered whereby “a vote to lay 

on the table a proposed amendment shall not carry with it 

the pending measure.” In reference to this rule Senator Hoar 

said:

Under the present rule it is in the power of a single 

member of the Senate to compel practically the Senate to discuss any question whether it wants to or not 

and whether it be germane to the pending measure or 

not . . . . The proposed amendment to the rules simply permits, after the mover of the amendment, who of 

course has the privilege, in the fi rst place, has made his 

speech, a majority of the Senate if it sees fi t to dissever 

that amendment from the pending measure and to re15

quire it to be brought up separately at some other time 

or not at all.

(This proposed rule is now paragraph 4 of Rule XV of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate).

1883—On December 10, Senator Frye, Chairman of the Committee on Rules, reported a general revision of the Senate Rules. 

This revision included a provision for the “previous question.” 

Amendments adopted during consideration in the Senate 

struck this provision out.

1884—On January 11, the Senate Rules were revised and adopted.

On March 19, two resolutions introduced by Senator Harris 

were considered and agreed to by the Senate as follows:

(1) That the eighth rule of the Senate be amended by 

adding thereto: All motions made before 2 o’clock to proceed to the consideration of any matter shall be determined without debate.

(2) That the tenth rule of the Senate be amended by 

adding thereto: All motions to change such order or to 

proceed to the consideration of other business shall be 

decided without debate.

From this time until 1890 there were 15 different resolutions introduced to amend the Senate Rules as to limitations 

of debate, all of which failed of adoption.

1884—The Senate agreed (March 17) to amend Rule VII by adding 

thereto the following words:

The Presiding Offi cer may at any time lay, and it shall 

be in order at any time for a Senator to move to lay, before the Senate any bill or other matter sent to the Senate by the President or the House of Representatives, and 

any question pending at that time shall be suspended for 

this purpose. Any motion so made shall be determined 

without debate.

1886—The Senate agreed to strike out the words, “without debate,” 

from that part of Rule XIII which provided that “every motion 

to reconsider shall be decided by a majority vote.” (June 21).

1890—Senators Hoar, Blair, Edmunds, and Quay submitted various 

resolutions for limiting debate in various ways (August), but 

none were considered or approved.

1890—On December 29, Senator Aldrich introduced a cloture resolution in connection with Lodge’s “force bill,” which was being 

fi libustered. The resolution read, in part, as follows: “When 

any bill, resolution, or other question shall have been under 

consideration for a considerable time, it shall be in order for 

any Senator to demand that debate thereon be closed. On 

such demand no debate shall be in order, and pending such 

demand no other motion, except one motion to adjourn, shall 

be made . . . .” There were fi ve test votes on the cloture proposal which “commanded various majorities, but in the end 

it could not be carried in the Senate because of a fi libuster 

against it which merged into a fi libuster on the ‘force bill.’ ”

1893—Senators Platt, Hoar, Hill, and Gallinger introduced resolutions for cloture by majority action during a fi libuster against 
16

repeal of the Silver Purchase Law, which evoked extended discussion.

1893—Senator Sherman urged a study of Senate Rules with a view 

to their revision and the careful limitation of debate.

1897—The Chair ruled on March 3, that quorum calls could not be 

ordered unless business had intervened since the previous 

quorum call.

1902—The Senate agreed (April 8) to amend Rule XIX by inserting 

at the beginning of paragraph 2 the following:

No Senator in debate shall directly or indirectly by 

any form of words impute to another Senator or to other 

Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming 

a Senator.

No Senator in debate shall refer offensively to any 

State of the Union.

1908—Three important interpretations of the Rules were adopted in 

the course of the fi libuster against the Aldrich-Vreeland Currency Bill: (1) the Chair might count a quorum, if one were 

physically present, even on a vote, whether or not Senators 

answered to their names; (2) mere debate would not be considered business, and therefore more than debate must take 

place between quorum calls; (3) Senators could by enforcement of the Rules be restrained from speaking on the same 

subject more than twice in the same day.

1911—On April 6, Senator Root, submitted a resolution requesting the Committee on Rules to suggest an amendment to the 

Standing Rules whereby the Senate could obtain more effective control over its procedure. No action was taken on the 

resolution.

1914—Senator Smith (Georgia) proposed a rule of relevancy.

1914—The Senate decreed, September 17, that Senators could not 

yield for any purpose, even for a question, without unanimous 

consent; but reversed itself on this ruling the next day, September 18.

1915—On February 8, Senator Reed introduced a resolution to 

amend Rule XXII whereby debate on the Ship Purchase Bill, 

“S. 6845 shall cease, and the Senate shall proceed to vote 

thereon . . . .” The resolution did not pass in this session.

1916—From December 1915 to September 8, 1916, the fi rst or “long” 

session of the 64th Congress, there were fi ve resolutions introduced to amend Rule XXII. The resolutions acted upon were 

S. Res. 131 and S. Res. 149. On May 16, 1916, the Committee 

on Rules reported out favorably S. Res. 195 as a substitute 

for S. Res. 131 and S. Res. 149, which had been referred to it, 

and submitted a report (No. 447). The resolution, providing 

for two-thirds’ cloture by those voting, was debated but did 

not come to a vote.

1916 and 1920—The Democratic national platforms for both years 

included a statement that: “We favor such alteration of the 

Rules of procedure of the Senate of the United States as will 

permit the prompt transaction of the Nation’s legislative business.”
17

1917—On March 4, President Wilson made a speech in which he 

referred to the Armed Ship Bill, defeated by fi libustering. The 

President said in part,

The Senate has no rules by which debate can be limited or brought to an end, no rules by which dilatory tactics of any kind can be prevented . . . . The Senate of the 

U.S. is the only legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority is ready for action . . . . The 

only remedy is that the Rules of the Senate shall be so 

altered that it can act . . . .

1917—On March 5, the Senate was called in extraordinary session 

by the President because of the failure of the Armed Ship Bill 

in the 64th Congress.

On March 7, Senator Walsh introduced a cloture resolution 

(S. Res. 5), authorizing a committee to draft a substitute for 

Rule XXII, limiting debate. Senator Martin also introduced a 

resolution amending Rule XXII (similar to S. Res. 195, favorably reported by the Committee on Rules in the 64th Congress). The Martin resolution was debated at length and adopted March 8, 76–3. It provided for cloture on a “pending 

measure” if two-thirds of those present and voting so voted.

1918—On May 4, Senator Underwood introduced a resolution (S. 

Res. 235) further amending Rule XXII, re-establishing the use 

of the “previous question,” and limiting debate during the war 

period. On May 31, the Committee on Rules favorably reported out S. Res. 235 with a report (No. 472).

The Senate debated the resolution and Senator Borah offered an amendment on June 3. On June 11, the Senate further debated the resolution and a unanimous consent agreement was reached to vote on the measure. The resolution was 

further amended, by Senator Cummins, on June 12, but on 

June 13, the Senate rejected the resolution, 34–41.

1921—During the 67th Congress, fi ve resolutions were introduced 

to limit debate in some form. These were referred to the Committee on Rules.

1922—On November 29, upon the occasion of the famous fi libuster against the Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill, a point of order was 

raised by the Republican fl oor leader against the methods of 

delay employed by the opponents which, had the Chair sustained it, would have established a signifi cant precedent in 

the Senate as it had in the House. The incident occurred as 

follows:

Immediately upon the convening of the Senate, the leader 

of the fi libuster made a motion to adjourn. Senator Curtis 

made the point of order that under Rule III no motion was in 

order until the Journal had been read. He also made the additional point of order that the motion to adjourn was dilatory. 

To sustain his point, Senator Curtis said:

I know we have no rule of the Senate with reference 

to dilatory motions. We are a legislative body, and we are 

here to do business and not to retard business. It is a 

well-stated principle that in any legislative body where 

the rules do not cover questions that may arise general 

parliamentary rules must apply.
18

The same question was raised in the House of Representatives when they had no rule on the question of 

dilatory motions. It was submitted to the Speaker of 

the House, Mr. Reed. Mr. Speaker Reed held that, while 

there was no rule of the House upon the question, general parliamentary law applied, and he sustained the point 

of order.

The Vice President sustained Senator Curtis’ fi rst point of 

order in regard to Rule III, but did not rule on the point that 

the motion was dilatory.

1922—The Senate Republicans voted 32–1 in party conference on 

May 25 for majority cloture on revenue and appropriation 

bills.

1925—On March 4, the Vice President, Charles G. Dawes, delivered 

his inaugural address to the Senate, in which he recommended that debate be further limited in the Senate.

On March 5, Senator Underwood introduced the following 

cloture resolution (S. Res. 3) embodying the Vice President’s 

recommendation on further limitation of debate, which was 

referred to the Committee on Rules.

Resolved, That the rules of the Senate be amended by 

adding thereto, in lieu of the rule adopted by the Senate 

for the limitation of debate on March 8, 1917, the following:

1. There shall be a motion for the previous question 

which, being ordered by a majority of Senators voting, if 

a quorum be present, shall have the effect to cut off all 

debate and bring the Senate to a direct vote upon the immediate question or questions on which it has been asked 

and ordered. The previous question may be asked and 

ordered upon a single motion, a series of motions allowable under the rules, or an amendment or amendments, 

or may be made to embrace all authorized motions or 

amendments and include the bill to its passage or rejection. It shall be in order, pending the motion for, or after 

previous question shall have been ordered on its passage, 

for the Presiding Offi cer to entertain and submit a motion to commit, with or without instructions, to a standing or select committee.

2. All motions for the previous question shall, before 

being submitted to the Senate, be seconded by a majority 

by tellers if demanded.

3. When a motion for the previous question has been 

seconded, it shall be in order, before fi nal vote is taken 

thereon, for each Senator to debate the proposition to be 

voted for one hour.

Other resolutions introduced in the fi rst session of the 69th 

Congress limiting debate were S. Res. 25; S. Res. 59; S. Res. 

76; S. Res. 77; S. Res. 217; S. Res. 225 which were also referred to the Committee on Rules.

1925—Senator Robinson said: “No change in the written rules of the 

Senate is necessary to prevent irrelevant debate. Parliamentary procedure everywhere contemplates that a speaker shall 

limit his remarks to the subject under consideration. The diffi culty grows out of the failure of the Presiding Offi cer of the 

Senate to enforce this rule.”
19

1925—Senator Jones proposed a threefold plan of reform: (1) extend 

the existing rule which forbids amendments not germane to 

appropriation bills to general legislation; (2) compel Senators 

to confi ne their remarks to the subject under consideration 

unless permitted by unanimous consent to do otherwise; (3) 

limit debate on measures other than revenue or appropriation 

bills after they have been under consideration ten days and 

a unanimous consent agreement for their disposal has been 

impossible to reach.

1925—Senators Fess and Jones introduced resolutions for a rule of 

relevancy.

1926—Senator Underwood offered a resolution to limit debate by 

majority vote on appropriation and revenue bills.

1933—Adoption of Twentieth Amendment (February 6), by doing 

away with short sessions, would eliminate fi libusters, so Senator Norris believed. But subsequent events demonstrated 

that fi libustering minorities were still able to delay urgent 

legislation. The fi nal sessions of the 73rd and 74th Congresses, the fi rst two to function under the Amendment, ended in 

fi libusters.

1935—The Chair ruled that a quorum call is the transaction of business and that Senators who yield for that purpose lose the 

fl oor. Under this ruling, a speaker yielding twice for quorum 

calls, if they are in order, while the same question is before 

the Senate is unable to regain the fl oor on that question during the same legislative day.

1939—The Reorganization Act of 1939 (Public Law 19, 76th Congress, 1st session) limited debate to ten hours, to be divided 

equally between those for and against, upon a resolution to 

disapprove a Presidential reorganization proposal.

1945—The Reorganization Act of 1945 (Public Law 263, 79th Congress, 1st session) contained the same “anti-fi libuster rule” as 

the Reorganization Act of 1939. This rule read:

Debate on the resolution shall be limited to not to exceed ten hours, which shall be equally divided between 

those favoring and those opposing the resolution. A motion further to limit debate shall not be debatable. No 

amendment to, or motion to recommit, the resolution 

shall be in order, and it shall not be in order to move to 

reconsider the vote by which the resolution is agreed to 

or disagreed to.

Subsequent extensions of the Reorganization Act have contained this proscription on debate.

1946—The Republican Steering Committee delegated Senator 

Saltonstall to prepare an amendment to Rule XXII “so that 

the various dilatory methods of preventing its application can 

be eliminated.” (May 21).

1946—Senator Knowland proposed (S. Res. 312) a new standing rule 

prohibiting the receipt or consideration of any amendment to 

any bill or resolution which is not germane or relevant to the 

subject matter thereof. Referred to Rules Committee (July 25).

1946—Senator Moses urged a thorough study of the Rules of the 

Senate “to the end of completely revising them.” He also submitted a resolution (S. Res. 314) directing the Parliamentari20

an of the Senate to “prepare a complete and annotated digest” 

of its precedents (July 25). Referred to Rules Committee. (The 

precedents and practices of the Senate have been compiled by 

the Parliamentarians of the Senate and published. See Riddick’s Senate Procedure.)

1947—Senators Saltonstall, Knowland, Morse, and Pepper introduced resolutions to amend Rule XXII so as to make cloture 

apply to any measure or motion or other matter pending 

before the Senate by a majority vote of those voting or by a 

majority vote of the entire membership of the Senate. The 

Rules Committee on April 3, reported a resolution (S. Res. 25) 

amending Rule XXII by making cloture apply to “any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate or 

the unfi nished business,” but making no change in the current voting requirements of Rule XXII or in the limitation of 

debate after cloture is invoked.

1947—Senator Pepper revived a suggestion that the Senate adopt a 

new rule making irrelevant debate out of order. He also proposed to limit debate on a motion to make any subject the unfi nished business of the Senate, to make such a motion privileged, and have it decided by majority vote.

1947—Senator Holland suggested that majority cloture be adopted 

only for the closing day or days of a session and that twothirds cloture be required at other times.

1948—On July 28, Senator Tobey introduced S. Res. 270, “that during the present special session of the Congress, in the interests of effi ciency and conservation of time, no Senator shall 

speak more than once, on any subject, and no more than 30 

minutes thereon.” No action was taken on this proposal.

1948—Senator Vandenberg, President pro tempore, in sustaining a 

point of order against a petition to close debate on motion to 

consider the antipoll tax bill, expressed his belief that:

. . . in the fi nal analysis, the Senate has no effective 

cloture rule at all . . . a small but determined minority 

can always prevent cloture, under the existing rules . . . 

a very few Senators have it in their power to prevent 

Senate action on anything . . . the existing Senate rules 

regarding cloture do not provide conclusive cloture. They 

still leave the Senate, rightly or wrongly, at the mercy of 

unlimited debate ad infi nitum. (August 2).

1948—The Republican Conference appointed a committee of ten 

Senators to consider and recommend revision of the existing 

cloture rule (August). Members of this committee were: Senators Brooks (Chairman), Wherry, Hickenlooper, Knowland, 

Lodge, Jenner, Bricker, Ives, Ferguson, and Saltonstall.

1949—During the fi rst session of the 81st Congress, fi ve resolutions 

were introduced to amend the cloture rule. Hearings on the 

subject were held early in the year by the Committee on Rules 

and Administration and, under threat of a move to discharge 

the committee, it reported, without amendment, the HaydenWherry resolution (S. Res. 15; Senate Report 81–69). The purpose of this resolution was to plug a loophole in the existing 

cloture rule. It sought to apply the cloture rule “to motions or 

other matters pending” before the Senate rather than just to 
21

the “pending measure.” Debate began on February 28, and 

continued at intervals until March 17. On March 10, a motion to apply cloture to the motion to take up was presented. 

Because cloture was assumed not to apply to motions to take 

up, Senator Russell made a point of order against the cloture 

motion. He was overruled by the Chair but on appeal the Senate refused to sustain the Chair. Subsequently, a compromise 

was worked out. Under this compromise the application of 

cloture to motions or other pending matters was incorporated 

into Rule XXII but at the same time it was required that twothirds of the entire Senate vote for cloture in order to invoke 

it rather than two-thirds of those present and voting.

1950—During the second session of the 81st Congress three resolutions were introduced to liberalize the cloture rule adopted in 

1949. They were S. Res. 283, by Senator Saltonstall, on May 

22, 1950; S. Res. 322, by Senator Morse and Senator Humphrey, on August 2; and S. Res. 336, by Senator Lehman and 

nine others, on August 24. All these resolutions were referred 

to the Committee on Rules and Administration, which took no 

action upon them.

1950—On May 5, Senator Lucas moved to proceed to the consideration of the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) 

bill (S. 1728). On May 19, a motion to close debate on the motion to take up the Fair Employment Practices Commission 

bill was defeated, 52–32. Under the 1949 cloture rule it would 

have required the votes of 64 Senators, two-thirds of those 

duly elected and sworn, to close debate. This was the fi rst 

test of the cloture rule as amended in 1949. Republicans voted 

33 for cloture, 6 against. Democrats voted 19 for cloture, 26 

against. Twelve Senators were absent of whom 9 were Democrats and 3 were Republicans. One of the absentees—Senator 

Withers—was formally announced as opposing application of 

cloture. (For discussion of the failure of the new cloture rule 

on its fi rst try, see Congressional Record, May 19, 1950, pp. 

7300–7307.)

1950—On July 12, a second attempt to invoke cloture on the motion to permit consideration of the FEPC bill (S. 1728) was 

defeated by a vote of 55–33, nine votes short of the required 

number. (For further discussion of the pros and cons of the 

1949 cloture rule, see Congressional Record, July 12, 1950, 

pp. 9976–9985.)

1951–52—During the 82nd Congress four resolutions to amend the 

Senate cloture rule were introduced:

S. Res. 41, by Senator Morse and Senator Humphrey, providing for simply majority cloture;

S. Res. 52, by Senator Ives and Senator Lodge, providing for 

constitutional majority (49) cloture;

S. Res. 105, by Senator Lehman and ten others, providing 

for simple two-thirds cloture after a waiting period of 48 hours 

or, alternatively, for simple majority cloture after 15 days of 

debate; and

S. Res. 203, by Senator Wherry, providing for cloture by 

two-thirds of those present and voting.
22

These resolutions were referred to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration which held hearings on them on October 

2, 3, 9, and 23, 1951. On March 6, 1952, the Committee reported favorably S. Res. 203, with an amendment lengthening 

the time limit between the fi ling of a cloture motion and the 

vote thereon from one to fi ve intervening calendar days (Senate Report No. 1256, 82nd Congress, 2nd session). S. Res. 203, 

if adopted, would have restored the voting requirement for 

cloture which was in effect from 1917 to 1949, i.e., two-thirds 

of those Senators present and voting instead of two-thirds of 

those duly chosen and sworn. S. Res. 302 left paragraph 3 of 

the existing Rule XXII unaltered, which meant that debate 

would remain unlimited on proposals to change any of the 

Standing Rules of the Senate.

Dissenting views were fi led by Senator Lodge who felt that 

S. Res. 203 “will make no practical difference insofar as the 

prevention of future fi libusters concerned;” by Senator Hendrickson who urged adoption of a simple majority cloture rule; 

and by Senator Benton who favored S. Res. 105. No further 

action was taken on the subject during 1952.

1953–54—During the 83rd Congress four resolutions to amend the 

Senate cloture rule were introduced:

S. Res. 20, by Senator Jenner, providing for cloture by twothirds of those present and voting;

S. Res. 31, by Senator Ives, providing for cloture by a majority of the Senate’s authorized membership; a 12-day interval 

(exclusive of Sundays and legal holidays) between the fi ling 

of a cloture petition and the vote thereon; and deleting paragraph 3 of Rule XXII and all reference to it in paragraph 2;

S. Res. 63, by Senator Lehman and seven others, repealing 

paragraph 3 of Rule XXII and providing two methods of cloture: by two-thirds of those voting after one intervening day 

following fi ling of the petition, or, if this failed, by a majority 

of those voting following an interval of 14 days; and

S. Res. 291, by Senator Morse, providing for cloture by a 

majority of those voting, and repealing paragraph 3 of Rule 

XXII.

These resolutions were referred to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration which, after consideration, favorably reported S. Res. 20 to the Senate with an amendment (S. Rept. 

268). Individual views were fi led by Senator Green and Senator Hennings. The resolution was placed on the calendar, but 

no further action was taken. S. Res. 291 was ordered to lie on 

the table, July 22, 1953. Floor consideration of S. Res. 20 was 

objected to on four calendar calls during the second session of 

the 83rd Congress.

The major event of the 83rd Congress as regards efforts to 

limit debate in the Senate was the Anderson motion. At the 

opening of the 83rd Congress advocates of majority rule in 

the Senate challenged the conception of the Senate as a continuing body. They based their strategy on the contention of 

Senator Walsh in 1917 that each new Congress brings with 

it a new Senate, entitled to consider and adopt its own rules. 

They proposed to move for consideration of new rules on the 
23

fi rst day of the session and, upon the adoption of this motion, 

to propose that all the old rules be adopted with the exception 

of Rule XXII. Rule XXII was to be changed to allow a majority 

of all Senators (49 at the time) to limit debate after 14 days 

of discussion.

Accordingly, on January 3, 1953, Senator Anderson, on behalf of himself and 18 other Senators, moved that the Senate 

immediately consider the adoption of rules for the Senate of 

the 83rd Congress. Senator Taft then moved that the Anderson motion be tabled. In the ensuing debate the Anderson motion was supported by Senators Douglas, Humphrey, Lehman, 

Ives, Hendrickson, Neely, Morse, and Murray.

Senator Douglas told the Senate that the Anderson proposal was the only method with any hope of success. The 1949 

rule, he said:

ties our hands once the Senate is fully organized . . . . 

For under it any later proposal to alter the rules can be 

fi libustered and never permitted to come to a vote . . . . 

Therefore, if it be permanently decided that the rules 

of the preceding Senate apply automatically as the new 

Senate organizes, we may as well say farewell to any 

chance either for civil rights legislation or needed changes in Senate procedures. (Congressional Record, January 

7, 1953, p. 203).

Opponents of the Anderson motion centered principally on 

the argument that the Senate is a “continuing body,” bound 

by the Rules of earlier Senates. They said that this thesis was 

proved because of the following reasons. Only one-third of the 

Senate is elected every two years. The Constitution did not 

provide for the adoption of new rules every two years. If the 

Senate had had the power to adopt new rules, it had lost that 

power through disuse. The Supreme Court, they said, had decided that the Senate was a “continuing body.”

Debate against the Rules change was led by Senator Taft 

who announced that the Republican Policy Committee had 

voted to oppose it in caucus; and by Senators Russell, Saltonstall, Stennis, Ferguson, Smith (N.J.), Butler , Maybank, and 

Knowland.

The Anderson motion was fi nally tabled by a vote of 70–21, 

taken on January 7, 1953. Taft was opposed by 15 Democrats, 

5 Republicans and 1 Independent. He was supported by 41 

Republicans and 29 Democrats. One additional Democrat was 

paired against the Taft motion; and one additional Republican 

was paired for it.

1955–56—During the 84th Congress, only one resolution to amend 

the cloture rule was presented to the Senate. This was S. Res. 

108, by Senator Lehman, on June 14, 1955. On that day it 

was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration; 

and on June 29, 1955, to the Subcommittee on Rules. No further action was taken on the Lehman resolution. S. Res. 108 

provided (a) for cloture by a two-thirds vote of those voting 

“on the following calendar day but one” after the presentation 

of a petition to close debate; and (b) for cloture by a majority 

of those voting “on the fourteenth calendar day thereafter.”
24

1957–58—At the opening of the 85th Congress, on January 3, Senator Anderson moved to consider the adoption of new rules. 

Senate Majority Leader Johnson immediately moved to table 

the Anderson motion. On January 4, the Anderson motion 

was tabled by a roll call vote of 55–38. During the debate preceding this vote, Vice President Nixon said he believed the 

Senate could adopt new rules “under whatever procedures the 

majority of the Senate approves.” He said that in his opinion 

the current Senate could not be bound by any previous rule 

“which denies the membership of the Senate the power to exercise its constitutional right to make its own rules.” Nixon 

said he regarded as unconstitutional the section of Rule XXII 

banning any limitation of debate on proposals to change the 

Rules, but added that the question of the constitutionality of 

the Rules could be decided only by the Senate itself.

During the 85th Congress, eight resolutions to amend the 

cloture rule were introduced:

S. Res. 17 by Senator Douglas, repealing paragraph 3 of 

Rule XXII and providing 2 methods of cloture: by two-thirds 

of those voting 2 days after 16 Senators had fi led a petition, 

or, if this failed, by a majority of those voting 15 days after a 

petition had been signed by 16 Senators;

S. Res. 19 by Senator Case, amending paragraph 2 of Rule 

XXII to read that cloture may be invoked by “two-thirds of the 

Senators present and voting but in no case less than a majority of the Senators duly chosen and sworn;”

S. Res. 21 by Senator Morse, providing for the imposition of 

cloture by majority vote;

S. Res. 28 by Senator Ives, repealing paragraph 3 of Rule 

XXII and providing for the imposition of cloture by majority 

vote;

S. Res. 29 by Senator Humphrey, repealing paragraph 3 of 

Rule XXII;

S. Res. 30 by Senator Knowland, repealing paragraph 3 of 

Rule XXII and providing for the imposition of cloture by twothirds of the Senators present and voting;

S. Res. 32 by Senator Bush, repealing paragraph 3 of Rule 

XXII and providing for the imposition of cloture by two-thirds 

of the Senators present and voting;

S. Res. 171 by Senator Jenner, providing for the imposition 

of cloture by two-thirds of the Senators present and voting.

These resolutions were referred to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration which, after consideration, favorably reported S. Res. 17 (S. Rept. 1509). This resolution was placed 

on the calendar, but no further action was taken. Floor consideration of S. Res. 17 was objected to and passed over on four 

calendar calls during the second session of the 85th Congress.

1959–60—At the opening of the 86th Congress, Senate Majority 

Leader Johnson offered a resolution (S. Res. 5) to amend Senate Rule XXII which was adopted on January 12, after four 

days of debate, by a 72–22 vote. S. Res. 5 amended Rule XXII 

so as to enable two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to shut off debate on any matter, including proposals for 

Rules changes. It also amended Senate Rule XXXII by adding 
25

this language: “The rules of the Senate shall continue from 

one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as 

provided in these rules.” (Now in Rule V).

During the second session of the 86th Congress, on August 

10, 1960, Senator Javits introduced S. Res. 358 which provided for the imposition of cloture by a majority vote of all Senators chosen and sworn. The resolution died in the Committee 

on Rules and Administration.

1961–62—At the opening of the 87th Congress two resolutions to 

amend Rule XXII were introduced in the Senate: S. Res. 4, 

by Senator Anderson, to allow curtailment of debate by threefi fths (instead of two-thirds) of those present and voting; and 

S. Res. 5, by Senators Humphrey and Kuchel, providing for 

majority cloture. At the outset of the debate on these resolutions, Vice President Nixon reaffi rmed his 1957 “advisory 

opinion” that the constitutional right of a majority of the Senate to adopt new rules at the beginning of a new Congress 

could not be inhibited by the two-thirds requirement of Rule 

XXII regarding cloture. After seven days of debate on a Mansfi eld motion to consider S. Res. 4, Senators Mansfi eld and 

Dirksen moved to refer the matter to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration. Their motion was adopted on January 

11, 1961, by a roll call vote of 50–46. Eight other resolutions 

to change Senate Rules were also referred by voice vote to the 

Committee, including proposals for a rule of germaneness and 

the previous question. On September 5, 1961, the Committee 

reported S. Res. 4 without recommendation and on September 

16, Mansfi eld moved to take it up. On September 19, after 

two days of debate, the Senate refused to impose cloture on 

debate of Mansfi eld’s motion by a 37–43 roll call vote. Then 

Mansfi eld moved to table the motion to consider, and this carried, 46–35.

1963–64—Senator Anderson on January 14, 1963, introduced a resolution (S. Res. 9) to lower from two-thirds to three-fi fths of the 

Senators present and voting the majority needed to invoke 

cloture. Then Senator Humphrey, speaking for a bi-partisan 

group of 14 liberals, introduced S. Res. 10 which would have 

permitted cloture to be fi led by a constitutional majority (51 

Senators) 15 days after a petition had been fi led by 16 Senators if cloture under the existing rule had failed.

During the debate on the motion to consider the Anderson proposal, January 30, 1963, Senators Javits and Keating called on Vice President Johnson in the chair, to “put the 

question” to the Senate in order to cut off debate and permit a 

resolution of the constitutional issue. Johnson denied that the 

Senate’s presiding offi cer had such power. He further stated 

that it was a matter of constitutional interpretation, and that 

since 1803, such matters invariably had been decided by the 

Senate itself.

On February 15, 1963, Mansfi eld fi led a cloture petition. 

He stated that unless the cloture motion received the support 

of at least 60 Senators, he would favor laying aside S. Res. 9. 

On February 7, the Senate refused by a 54–42 roll call vote to 

invoke cloture on the pending motion to take up the resolu26

tion. While short of the mark, the 54–42 vote for cloture was 

the fi rst instance in a decade when those proposing a change 

in Rule XXII mustered a majority in their favor.

Senator Allott introduced the only other resolution during the 

88th Congress relating to amending Rule XXII. S. Res. 11 provided for the imposition of cloture by a three-fi fths vote of the 

Senators duly chosen and sworn. The resolution was referred to 

the Committee on Rules and Administration where it died.

1965–66—During the 89th Congress, fi ve resolutions were introduced with provisions to amend Rule XXII. On January 6, 

1965, Senator Anderson introduced a resolution (S. Res. 6) 

permitting a three-fi fths majority of the Senators present and 

voting, in place of the existing requirement of two-thirds, to 

shut off debate. Senator Douglas introduced a substitute proposal (S. Res. 8) requiring only a majority vote of the entire 

Senate membership to cut off debate. The two resolutions 

were referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

on January 8, under a unanimous consent agreement which 

required the Committee to report by March 9. On March 3, 

the Committee reported adversely on both proposals by a 5–4 

vote. No effort was made to call up the two resolutions during 

the rest of the session. Three other resolutions were introduced which were referred to the Rules and Administration 

Committee and died there:

S. Res. 16 by Senator Morse, repealing paragraph 3 of Rule 

XXII and providing for the imposition of cloture by majority vote;

S. Res. 82 by Senator Miller, providing for the imposition of 

cloture by a three-fi fths vote of the Senators present and voting;

S. Res. 114 by Senator Bennett, providing that each Senator who calls up an amendment after cloture shall, in addition to the one hour of speaking time provided to him by Rule 

XXII, be allowed up to an additional 5 minutes to explain his 

amendment.

1967–68—Two proposals to change Rule XXII were introduced in the 

90th Congress on January 11;

S. Res. 6 by Senator McGovern and Senator Morton providing 

for three-fi fths of the Senators present and voting to end debate;

S. Res. 7 by Senator Kuchel and 15 other Senators permitting 16 Senators to fi le a cloture motion after a proposal had 

been debated for 20 days. The question of terminating debate 

would be put to the Senate for a vote one hour after the session of the 20th day began and a majority vote of the Senators 

would end debate.

On January 18, Senator McGovern proposed that the Senate immediately vote to end debate on the motion to consider his resolution and if a majority vote occurred, the Senate 

would then debate the resolution itself. Senator McGovern 

justifi ed this procedure by arguing that the Senate under the 

Constitution could at the beginning of a new session adopt 

new rules by majority vote. Senator Dirksen raised a point of 

order against the McGovern motion claiming that it was, in 

effect, an effort to circumvent Rule XXII.

Supporters of Senator McGovern had hoped for a favorable 

ruling from Vice President Humphrey, but Humphrey stated:
27

. . . the precedent, which is a part of Senate history— 

namely, that the Chair has submitted constitutional 

questions to the Senate for its decision—the Presiding 

Offi cer believes to be a sound procedure. It has not been 

considered the proper role of the Chair to interpret the 

Constitution for the Senate. Each Senator has his own 

obligation when he takes his oath of offi ce to support and 

defend the Constitution. The Presiding Offi cer is aware 

of no suffi cient justifi cation for reversing this procedure.

Humphrey then asked the Senate if the point of order 

should be sustained. He also said this question was debatable but subject to a tabling motion, which is not debatable; 

whereupon Senator McGovern moved to table the Dirksen 

point of order. According to the Vice President, acceptance of 

the tabling motion would have validated the constitutionality 

of the McGovern motion, which in turn would have validated 

the right of the Senate to adopt new rules by majority vote at 

the beginning of a new session. However, the Senate rejected 

McGovern’s motion to table by a 37–61 roll call vote. Dirksen’s 

point of order was then sustained, 59–37. Hence the Senate 

found McGovern’s motion unconstitutional.

An attempt was then made to invoke cloture, but it failed 

on January 24, 53–46.

1969–70—At the beginning of the 91st Congress yet another strategy 

was devised by those who favored alteration in Rule XXII, but 

felt themselves blocked by that very cloture rule from effecting a change. Proponents of change marshaled their support 

behind a single resolution, S. Res. 11, introduced by Senators 

Church and Pearson and cosponsored by 35 other Senators. 

It provided for the invoking of cloture by three-fi fths, rather 

than two-thirds, of those present and voting.

Their strategy required a favorable ruling by the Vice President, still Mr. Humphrey, that a simple majority could invoke 

cloture on any motion to take up, or on the resolution itself, 

when a change in the Rules was being attempted at the start 

of a new Congress. On January 14, 1969, fi ve days after debate had begun on S. Res. 11, Senator Church and 24 other 

Senators fi led a cloture motion to limit debate on the motion 

to consider the resolution. This cloture motion was fi led under 

the procedures set forth in Rule XXII.

Senator Church then inquired of the Chair whether, if a 

majority of the Senators present and voting, but less than 

the two-thirds required by Rule XXII, voted in favor of cloture, the cloture motion would have been agreed to. Senator 

Church justifi ed his request for a favorable ruling with the 

argument that it was unconstitutional to require a two-thirds 

vote to invoke cloture on such questions in that it restricted 

the right of a majority of the Senate to determine its rules at 

the opening of a new Congress, a right, by Senator Church’s 

reasoning, implied in the Constitution.

The Vice President agreed with Senator Church, saying:

On a par with the right of the Senate to determine its 

rules, though perhaps not set forth so specifi cally in the 
28

Constitution, is the right of the Senate, a simple majority 

of the Senate, to decide constitutional questions.

If a majority—this is the view of the Chair—but less 

than two-thirds, of those present and voting, vote in favor of this cloture motion, the question whether the motion has been agreed to is a constitutional question. The 

constitutional question is the validity of the rule XXII 

requirement for an affi rmative vote by two-thirds of the 

Senate before a majority of the Senate may exercise its 

right to consider a proposed change in the rules. If the 

Chair were to announce that the motion for cloture had 

not been agreed to because the affi rmative vote had fallen short of the two-thirds required, the Chair would not 

only be violating one established principle by deciding 

the constitutional question himself, he would be violating 

the other established principle by inhibiting, if not effectively preventing, the Senate from exercising its right to 

decide the constitutional question . . . .

The Chair informs the Senate that in order to give substance to the right of the Senate to determine or change 

its rules to determine whether the two-thirds requirement of rule XXII is an unconstitutional inhibition on 

that right at the opening of a new Congress, if a majority 

of the Senators present and voting but fewer than twothirds vote in favor of the pending motion for cloture, 

the Chair will announce that a majority having agreed 

to limit debate on Senate Resolution 11, to amend rule 

XXII, at the opening of a new Congress, debate will proceed under the cloture provisions of that rule.

This landmark ruling, subject, as the Chair said, to appeal without debate, caused considerable agony for those who 

opposed it and the altering of Rule XXII. Senator Holland 

averred that it would “deprive the Senate of any chance to 

discuss the constitutional aspects of this very serious matter.”

On January 16, the Senate voted 51–47 to invoke cloture 

and the Vice President, in line with his earlier statement, 

ruled that cloture had been invoked. This decision was appealed and reversed on a 45–53 roll call vote. Subsequently, 

on January 28, a second attempt to invoke cloture, this time 

within the two-thirds stricture of Rule XXII, was attempted 

and failed, 50–42; thus ended another attempt to change Rule 

XXII.

1971—At the start of the 92nd Congress, the longest battle in many 

years over altering the cloture rule, Rule XXII, took place. On 

January 25, Senators Church and Pearson introduced S. Res. 

9. That resolution, co-sponsored by forty-nine other Senators, 

would have reduced the number of Senators required to curtail debate from two-thirds to three-fi fths of those present and 

voting.

As in 1969, proponents of reform hoped for a favorable ruling from the Chair on whether a simple majority at the start 

of a Congress could invoke cloture on a resolution to alter 

Senate Rules or on a motion to take up such a resolution. 

However, Vice President Spiro Agnew stated that he would 

refrain from making any such ruling and, instead, referred all 

such questions to the full Senate for resolution. Thus, propo29

nents of S. Res. 9 were required to carry on their efforts under 

the two-thirds requirement they were seeking to change.

On the day Senators Church and Pearson introduced S. 

Res. 9, opponents began a fi libuster on the motion to consider the resolution. Senator Allen coordinated the efforts of a 

coalition, consisting largely of Southern Democrats and Republicans, that prolonged debate on the motion to consider S. 

Res. 9. The fi rst attempt to invoke cloture came on February 

18. Proponents of S. Res. 9 could muster only 48 votes in favor of ending debate compared with 37 Senators who opposed 

curtailing discussion, far short of the two-thirds majority required. A second attempt to invoke cloture failed on February 

23, 50–36.

During the six-week debate on the motion to consider the 

resolution, several Senators suggested a number of compromise solutions to bridge the gap between those favoring a 

modifi cation of Rule XXII and the opponents of a three-fi fth 

cloture rule. Senator Ellender proposed a three-fi fths vote to 

end debate on all conference reports and appropriations bills. 

Majority Whip Byrd suggested that debate be ended by threefi fths of the membership of the Senate. Senator Dole offered 

a resolution to reduce gradually the number of Senators required to invoke cloture. Beginning with the two-thirds requirement, each successive attempt to invoke cloture on the 

same measure would require one less vote than the previous 

attempt until the three-fi fths level was reached on the eighth 

vote. Senator Miller proposed a three-fi fth requirement for 

cloture with the added stipulation that the majority include a 

simple majority of each major party in Congress.

Senator Miller’s resolution received serious consideration 

from Senators Church and Pearson after the third attempt to 

end debate on S. Res. 9, failed on March 2 by a vote of 48–36. 

A fourth and fi nal attempt to end debate failed on March 9 by 

a vote of 55–39, eight votes short of the required two-thirds 

majority. After this vote, Senator Javits appealed the decision of Presiding Offi cer Ellender, who had announced that 

the cloture attempt had failed to receive the necessary twothirds majority. By appealing the decision of the Chair, Javits 

again raised the question of whether the Senate could alter 

its Rules at the beginning of a new session by a simple majority. Majority Leader Mansfi eld moved to table Senator Javits’ 

motion; the motion to table carried, 55–37.

1975—The fi rst session of the 94th Congress produced a protracted, and ultimately successful, attempt to modify Senate Rule 

XXII. Under the sponsorship of Senators Mondale, Pearson, 

and others, an attempt was made to change the cloture rule 

so that three-fi fths of the Senators present and voting could 

bring debate to a close. This proposal, S. Res. 4, was introduced by Senator Pearson on January 17, and placed on the 

Senate calendar.

As in the past, proponents of the measure hoped for a favorable ruling from the Chair on whether a simple majority, 

at the start of Congress, could close debate on a resolution to 

change Senate Rules, or on a motion to take up such a resolu30

tion. On February 20, Senator Pearson, as part of a lengthy 

motion, moved the consideration of S. Res. 4.

I move that the Senate proceed to the consideration of 

calendar item No. 1, Senate Resolution 4, amending rule 

XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate with respect 

to limitation of debate; and that under Article I, section 

5, of the U.S. Constitution, I move that debate upon the 

pending motion to proceed to the consideration of Senate 

Resolution 4 be brought to a close by the Chair immediately putting this motion to end debate to the Senate for 

a yea-and-nay vote; and, upon the adoption thereof by a 

majority of those Senators present and voting, a quorum 

being present, the Chair shall immediately thereafter put 

to the Senate, without further debate, the question on 

the adoption of the pending motion . . . . (Congressional 

Record, p. 3835).

Majority Leader Mansfi eld entered a point of order against 

the motion in that it violated the Rules of the Senate by prescribing an end to debate by a majority vote. Senator Mansfi eld observed, “the present motion to invoke cloture by a simple majority vote, if it succeeds, would alter the concept of the 

Senate so drastically that I cannot under any circumstances 

fi nd any justifi cation for it.” (Congressional Record, p. 3836).

Vice President Rockefeller declined to rule either on the validity of the Pearson motion or on the Mansfi eld point of order, 

and, instead, submitted to the Senate the question of whether 

the Mansfi eld point of order was well taken. The Senate temporarily endorsed the doctrine that majority cloture may be 

invoked to change Senate Rules at the start of a Congress 

when it agreed to a motion by Senator Mondale to table the 

Mansfi eld point of order, 51–42.

At this point in the proceedings, Senator Allen moved that 

the motion be divided inasmuch as it contained several clauses. The Vice President ruled that the motion could be divided 

and that, once divided, the various parts of the motion became 

debatable although, when considered as a whole, the motion 

was not subject to debate. With this ruling, coupled with the 

Vice President’s subsequent recognition of Senator Allen, the 

Pearson motion became subject to a long series of amendments 

and intervening motions. Although the principle of majority 

cloture had been endorsed, the parliamentary tangle which 

followed division of the motion prevented a majority cloture 

vote from being taken on the original Pearson resolution.

In the course of debate on February 26, Senator Long indicated his willingness to compromise on a constitutional threefi fths cloture rule. This proposal was embodied in S. Res. 93, 

introduced by Majority Whip Byrd on February 28. The Byrd 

resolution provided for closing debate in the Senate upon the 

vote of “three-fi fths of the Senators present and sworn.” The 

Byrd proposal required a two-thirds vote of “Senators present 

and voting” to close debate on a measure or motion to change 

the Rules of the Senate. Senator Byrd requested immediate 

consideration of his resolution, but objection was heard and 

the resolution went over, under the rule.
31

On March 3, the Senate, by a vote of 53–38, agreed to reconsider the vote of February 20, through which the Mansfi eld point of order against the Pearson motion was tabled. 

The motion to table the Mansfi eld point of order was rejected 

40–51. The following day, the Senate voted 53–43 to sustain 

the Mansfi eld point of order. Thus, the Senate reversed the 

precedent of majority cloture established two weeks before, 

and implicitly affi rmed the continuity of Senate Rules.

On March 3, Senator Byrd entered a motion to close debate 

on the motion to proceed to consider S. Res. 4. On March 5, 

the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed. The vote 

was 73–21, with two-thirds of the Senators present and voting 

having voted in the affi rmative. Later the same day, the Senate voted 69–26 to proceed to consider S. Res. 4, and adopted 

S. Res. 93 as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. At 

the close of the session, Senator Byrd introduced a motion to 

invoke cloture on S. Res. 4, as amended; cloture was voted 

on March 7, by a vote of 73–21, with two-thirds of the Senators present and voting recorded in the affi rmative. S. Res. 4, 

as amended to provide for a constitutional three-fi fths cloture 

vote for all measures save those amending the Rules of the 

Senate, passed the Senate on March 7, by a vote of 56–27.

1976—During the 2nd session of the 94th Congress, the Senate 

further refi ned the procedure under which it operated after 

cloture had been invoked. Previously, amendments had to be 

presented and read prior to the cloture vote in order to be 

considered after cloture was invoked. This requirement could 

be waived by unanimous consent. In approving S. Res. 268 

on April 6, the Senate agreed to permit amendments to be 

considered after invoking cloture if the amendments were 

submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk prior to the end of 

the cloture vote. This modifi cation was proposed when several 

amendments submitted prior to a cloture vote had inadvertently not been read before the vote was taken.

1977—Subsequent to the 1975 revisions, opponents of measures increasingly relied upon “post-cloture” fi libusters in an attempt 

to delay Senate action. By calling up amendments offered 

before cloture was invoked, by demanding frequent roll call 

votes and repeated quorum calls, and by calling for the reading of amendments, conference reports, and the Journal, fi libusterers could continue to prevent the Senate from taking 

fi nal action.

In 1977, Majority Leader Byrd introduced S. Res. 5, which 

was designed to restrict the use of such “post-cloture” fi libusters. As reported from the Committee on Rules and Administration, the resolution provided that a cloture petition could 

not be offered until 24 hours after the Senate had begun consideration of a measure, limited to 50 hours the amount of 

time available for debate after cloture was invoked, provided 

that time for quorum calls and votes be charged against the 

50 hours, permitted the post-cloture debate time to be extended or reduced upon the two-thirds vote of the Senate, and 

included provisions limiting dilatory tactics. The reading of 

amendments and conference reports in full could not be de32

manded if they were available in printed form to all Senators; 

and the Presiding Offi cer was given greater discretion in ruling quorum calls dilatory and out of order.

In support of his resolution, Majority Leader Byrd declared 

on May 9, that S. Res. 5 “constitutes a logical, feasible, reasonable approach in removing the roadblock (of post-cloture 

fi libusters) and it would be so without trampling upon the legitimate rights of the minority in the Senate.” Minority Leader Baker opposed the resolution. “I understand the need to 

tighten up on delay after cloture, but I think the Committee 

on Rules has gone too far as the majority has gone too far.” 

Because time for votes and quorum calls would be counted 

against the fi fty hours of debate time, it was possible, Baker 

noted, that not every Senator would have the opportunity to 

speak on a bill.

In an effort to meet the objections to S. Res. 5, the joint 

party leadership, and Senator Allen, a supporter of S. Res. 5, 

attempted to devise a compromise version of the resolution. 

The compromise proposal provided that after the fi fty hours 

of post-cloture debate, Senators who had not then used their 

half-hour of debate time, and who wished to do so, would be 

entitled to recognition. The revised resolution also permitted 

any amendment submitted prior to the cloture vote to be called 

up for action without further debate. A motion to dispense 

with the reading of the Journal would be voted on without 

debate, and motions to correct the Journal would be subject to 

a twenty-minute debate limitation. Motions to dispense with 

the reading of amendments and conference reports would be 

decided without debate when such documents were available 

in printed form. Post-cloture debate could be reduced under 

the same procedures as in the original resolution, but the 

time could not be reduced to fewer than ten hours. Similarly, 

no cloture petition could be fi led until a measure had been 

pending before the Senate for twenty-four hours.

The revised version failed to meet all minority party objections, and caused new concerns among some majority party 

Senators. On May 12, the measure was put aside, and the 

Senate proceeded to consider other business. No further attempts were made in the 95th Congress to consider S. Res. 5.

1977—In October, a series of rulings by the Vice President, sustained 

by the Senate, established precedents for reducing the impact 

of post-cloture fi libusters. Majority Leader Byrd raised a point 

of order against an amendment to the natural gas pricing bill 

in that the amendment was directed to the bill, and not to the 

substitute upon which cloture had already been invoked. The 

amendment, Senator Byrd claimed, was dilatory in that it 

was not directed at the subject under consideration. Moreover, 

Senator Byrd made the point of order that “when the Senate 

is operating under cloture, the Chair is required to take the 

initiative . . . to rule out of order all amendments which are 

dilatory or which on their face are out of order.” Vice President Mondale sustained the point of order, and the Senate 

tabled an appeal from the ruling of the Chair by a vote of 

79–14. The Senate also sustained, by a vote of 59–34, a point 
33

of order that a Senator has the right to withdraw his fi led 

amendments, qualifi ed and pending under cloture, prior to being called up. By a vote of 74–21, the Senate also sustained 

a point of order that actions ruled dilatory do not constitute 

the transaction of business for the purposes of demanding a 

subsequent quorum call.

1979—On the fi rst day of the 96th Congress, Majority Leader Byrd 

submitted S. Res. 9, proposing several procedural changes designed to expedite Senate business. It provided for nondebatable motions to approve and to correct the Journal, to waive 

the reading of printed amendments and conference reports, 

and (by a three-fi fths vote) to prohibit nongermane amendments to a measure. It also proposed that cloture motions 

submitted after September 1 in any year be voted on 3 hours 

after submission, that the time required between fi ling a report on a measure and considering the measure be reduced 

from three to two days, and that electronic voting be installed. 

To restrain the “post-cloture fi libuster,” it proposed to limit 

post-cloture consideration to 100 hours of actual consideration, and to permit three-fi fths of the Senate (60 Senators), 

on nondebatable motions in order once on each calendar day, 

to provide additional time under the control of the fl oor leaders or to reduce the time, but not to less than 10 hours.

On February 7, the Senate agreed to consider S. Res. 61, 

embodying only the last two of these provisions, dealing with 

procedure after cloture is invoked. The agreement also provided that only amendments dealing with post-cloture procedure 

be in order, and that S. Res. 9 recur as the pending business if 

action on S. Res. 61 were not completed by February 22. During debate on S. Res. 61, the Senate recessed every day after 

January 15 to maintain its “fi rst day.”

Debate on the resolution centered on ensuring that opportunities to participate in consideration of a measure under cloture would be equitably distributed to all Senators. On February 8, the Senate agreed to amendments, offered by Senator 

Byrd, providing that if a measure was reprinted after cloture 

was invoked, amendments could be conformed in their lineation and pagination so as to remain in order to the measure; 

that no Senator be recognized to offer more than two amendments under cloture until each Senator had had the chance 

to call up two; and that any Senator who had not spoken during debate under cloture could be recognized for ten minutes 

to speak even if the allotted time had expired. Another such 

amendment permitted the managers and fl oor leaders to be 

yielded up to two hours each from other Senators’ allotted 

hours, and to yield such time in turn to others.

During the debate, a proposal was considered that would 

have permitted Senators to reduce the total debate time by 

yielding their hours back, or to yield time to any other Senator, 

but these arrangements, like the provisions for reducing the 

debate time by a three-fi fths vote, were ultimately excluded 

from the plan as giving proponents of a matter under cloture 

too much opportunity to reduce the time available to others. 

However, on February 21, amendments by Senator Stevens 
34

were agreed to, embodying other elements of the proposal developed by the same group of Senators. These amendments 

provided that, under cloture, the reading and approval of the 

Journal be dispensed with, and the reading of printed amendments be waived. Other elements of this plan were rejected 

during the debate, including a proposal to limit consideration 

of a measure under cloture to eight hours per day. Another 

element not agreed to would have allowed new amendments 

in the second degree to be proposed after cloture was invoked; 

it was opposed on grounds that Senators should be able to 

know the nature of the propositions that would be discussed 

under cloture before invoking it. Instead, an amendment was 

agreed to on February 22 permitting fi rst degree amendments 

to be called up under cloture if they were fi led by the day after 

a cloture motion was fi led, and second degree amendments if 

fi led by one hour before the vote to invoke cloture.

On the central issue of the controlling the “post-cloture fi libuster,” several proposals were considered to substitute for 

the overall 100-hour cap a system of charging all roll calls 

against the hour of the Senators requesting them, but none 

was agreed to. Objections were, on the one hand, that such a 

system would give less opportunity to individual opponents of 

a measure under cloture than would the cap and, on the other 

hand, that only the cap could contain a post-cloture fi libuster. 

A proposal by Senator Javits was also rejected, which would 

have allowed a Senator whose amendments were ruled out 

of order under cloture one appeal, en bloc, of such rulings as 

he chose. Senator Byrd also suggested, but did not offer, an 

amendment to limit to three hours the time for debate, under 

cloture, on motions to proceed to consider a measure.

With these amendments, S. Res. 61 was then adopted, 78–

16, and the Senate adjourned briefl y, ending its fi rst legislative day of the session.

1981—S. Res. 16, submitted by Minority Leader Byrd at the beginning of the Congress, proposed to establish a motion by which 

a three-fi fths majority of those present could prohibit nongermane amendments to a specifi ed measure, without imposing 

the other restrictions of cloture. This motion would have been 

in order twice a day, and each time it was offered, debate on 

it would have been limited to one hour. Similar proposals had 

been offered in the immediately preceding Congresses, before 

adoption of the 1979 amendments to the cloture rule. S. Res. 

16 was sent to the calendar by being “laid over, under the 

rule” (as prescribed by Senate Rule XIV for resolutions neither referred nor immediately considered when submitted), 

and never received fl oor consideration.

1983–1984—The 1983 report of the Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures (“Pearson-Ribicoff Commission;” S. Prt. 

98–242) included several recommendations pertinent to the 

limitation of debate. Among them were (1) to limit debate on 

a motion to proceed to consider a measure or matter; (2) to 

prohibit any Senator (except the fl oor leaders and bill managers) from offering more than two amendments under cloture; 

(3) to prohibit the division of amendments under cloture; and 
35

(4) to permit the Senate, by a three-fi fths vote, to prohibit 

nongermane amendments to a specifi ed measure not being 

considered under cloture.

The 1984 report of the Temporary Select Committee to 

Study the Senate Committee System (“Quayle Committee;” S. 

Prt. 98–254) also offered recommendations to (1) limit debate 

on a motion to proceed to two hours, and (2) permit threefi fths of Senators present and voting to impose a germaneness 

requirement on amendments to a measure, without concurrently invoking the other requirements of cloture.

No resolutions specifi cally embodying the recommendations 

of either panel were submitted during the 98th Congress, but 

S. Res. 461, offered by the Majority Whip, Senator Stevens, 

near the end of the Congress and referred to the Committee 

on Rules and Administration, incorporated proposals to limit 

debate on a motion to proceed to two hours, equally divided 

between the fl oor leaders, and to permit three-fi fths of Senators present and voting to require germaneness of amendments to a measure.

S. Res. 461 also included several other provisions. It proposed to require debate to be germane, on each calendar day, 

from the point at which the Senate fi rst took up its pending or 

unfi nished business on any calendar day until the disposition 

of the specifi c question pending, rather than for only the fi rst 

three hours of considering business, as provided by existing 

Senate Rules. It proposed to protect Senators’ opportunity to 

offer amendments to committee amendments under cloture, 

by establishing a special fi ling deadline before cloture for fi rstdegree amendments to committee amendments, later than 

the deadline for other fi rst-degree amendments. It proposed 

a new procedure to allow three-fourths of Senators present 

and voting to initiate consideration of a measure under limits 

on debate and amendment more stringent than those of Rule 

XXII. It also included proposals: (1) to waive the reading of 

a conference report once it had been available for 24 hours; 

(2) to provide that committee amendments be deemed per se

germane under cloture; and (3) to permit Senators to shorten 

the time available for consideration under cloture by yielding 

back all or part of their allotted hour for debate. The Committee on Rules and Administration did not report this measure.

1985–1986—In the 97th Congress (1981–1982), the Senate had adopted S. Res. 20, authorizing the television broadcast of Senate fl oor proceedings, to begin after the Senate had adopted 

regulations governing the broadcasts. In the 98th Congress, 

the Senate considered, but did not adopt, S. Res. 66, a resolution establishing such regulations. In the 99th Congress, 

consequently, several resolutions were again submitted to 

establish regulations for television broadcast of Senate proceedings. Among these, the identical S. Res. 2 and S. Res. 

28, submitted by Minority Leader Byrd, incorporated several 

provisions amending Senate procedural rules, including those 

governing the limitation of debate, many of which again refl ected the recommendations of the two study groups of the 

previous Congress. S. Res. 2 was laid over, under Rule XIV; 
36

when submitted, S. Res. 28 was referred to the Committee 

on Rules and Administration. (Many of these procedural provisions were also submitted individually by Majority Leader 

Byrd in a series of separate resolutions, S. Res. 20 through S. 

Res. 27.)

Specifi cally, these resolutions proposed to reduce the supermajority required to invoke cloture from three-fi fths of the full 

Senate to three-fi fths of Senators present and voting (except 

on rules changes). Other provisions affecting the limitation of 

debate included: (1) limiting debate on a motion to proceed to 

two hours; (2) establishing a procedure by which three-fi fths 

of Senators present and voting could require germaneness of 

fl oor amendments to a measure; (3) eliminating any requirement for an amendment to be read when proposed under cloture; and (4) reducing the time for post-cloture consideration 

of a matter from 100 hours, with no Senator to speak for more 

than one hour, to 20 hours, equally divided and controlled by 

the two party fl oor leaders.

The Committee on Rules and Administration held hearings 

on regulations for the television broadcast of Senate proceedings in September 1985, and reported S. Res. 28 on November 

19, with amendments. The Senate considered and amended 

this resolution in February 1986 and adopted it on February 

27. As adopted, the resolution dropped all the procedural provisions described above, but incorporated language reducing 

the time for post-cloture consideration to 30 hours, while retaining the maximum allowance of one hour for each Senator.

1987–1988—In the course of the 100th Congress, numerous resolutions to amend Rule XXII or other Senate Rules were submitted, including several that addressed various aspects of 

debate and consideration. In December 1987, the Committee on Rules and Administration held hearings on several of 

these resolutions, but reported none, and none received fl oor 

action. In September 1988, however, the Committee issued a 

Report on Senate Operations (S. Prt. 100–141) that surveyed 

recommendations made by reform panels of the previous decade (including the 1983 Pearson-Ribicoff Study Group and 

the 1984 Quayle Committee, discussed above) and analyzed 

several specifi c procedural issues, including the scheduling of 

business and the germaneness of amendments.

The December 1987, hearing considered S. Res. 309, submitted by Majority Leader Byrd, to limit to two hours debate 

on motions to proceed to consider a measure or matter if offered outside the morning hour (also proposed by S. Res. 308; 

S. Res. 275, submitted by Senator Pryor, proposed a limit of 

one hour). S. Res. 107 (Senator Helms), on the other hand, 

would have established that a motion to proceed to consider 

executive business would always be debatable if offered while 

other business was already pending, and S. Res. 133 (Senator 

Hatch) would have made explicit that a motion to proceed to 

consider any other business, offered under those conditions, 

was always debatable. The 1988 Report suggested establishing a non-debatable motion by which a simple majority could 
37

impose a specifi ed limit on debate of a specifi c motion to consider.

Both the December 1987 hearing and the 1988 Report also 

considered two proposals by Senator Pryor, to place a time 

limit on roll call votes (S. Res. 276), and to require measures 

to be read for amendment by section (S. Res. 277). They also 

considered resolutions, submitted by Majority Leader Byrd, 

renewing proposals to establish a motion by which a threefi fths majority could require germaneness for amendments to 

a specifi ed measure (S. Res. 27, S. Res. 41).

The majority leader also proposed (S. Res. 25, S. Res. 43) 

to permit the Senate, under cloture, to reverse a ruling of the 

chair that an amendment was not germane only by threefi fths of Senators present and voting. The 1988 Report noted 

that such a restriction would guard against the possibility 

that a simple majority could secure consideration under cloture of a nongermane amendment even after a super-majority 

had voted to preclude such amendments. Another proposal by 

the majority leader (S. Res. 24, S. Res. 44) provided that for 

purposes of the cloture rule, amendments proposing a substitute for the entire text of a measure be treated as fi rst-degree 

amendments, thereby ensuring Senators the ability to call up 

amendments to a full-text substitute for consideration under 

cloture if they were fi led by the deadline for second-degree 

amendments. Finally, the majority leader proposed (S. Res. 

28, S. Res. 454) to eliminate, under cloture, the reading of all 

amendments, rather than only those that had been available 

in print for 24 hours.

Senator Hatch also submitted several other resolutions 

relating to Senate rules affecting debate. S. Res. 114 would 

have required the Senate, when proceeding under cloture, 

to approve the Journal daily by unanimous consent, rather 

than its automatically being considered approved. S. Res. 124 

would have made a motion to waive the reading of the Journal debatable.

1989—Several of the proposals offered in the preceding Congress 

were resubmitted in the 101st Congress, but none received 

fl oor consideration. Senator Pryor submitted S. Res. 9, to prohibit “sense of the Senate” or “sense of Congress” amendments 

unless submitted with 20 or more cosponsors; and S. Res. 10, 

to limit roll call votes to 15 minutes. Senator Byrd submitted 

S. Res. 11, to establish a motion, in order twice a day and debatable for one hour, to require amendments to a measure to 

be germane. Each of these proposals was laid over, under Rule 

XIV, and received no further action.

A new proposal, submitted by Senator McClure, was S. 

Res. 18, which would have required two days’ notice before a 

measure could be called up for consideration. Senator Pryor 

also submitted two new proposals: S. Res. 183, to require that 

amendments to a measure be offered in order of the sections 

of the measure, and S. Res. 184, which would have terminated the amendment process on a measure if, by the end of 15 

minutes after the disposition of any amendment, no further 

amendment had been offered. Each of these proposals was 
38

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration and 

received no further action.

1993–1994—Senator Byrd proposed several changes in Senate procedure. Those related to the limitation of debate included:

(1) limiting debate on a motion to proceed made by the majority leader to two hours (except on proposals to change Senate Rules);

(2) requiring a three-fi fths vote to overturn a ruling of the 

chair on appeal under cloture (two-thirds on measures to 

change the Rules);

(3) providing that committee amendments be deemed germane under cloture;

(4) charging the time taken by any quorum call under cloture against the time of the Senator initiating it;

(5) establishing a single motion by which the Senate could 

go to conference;

(6) abolishing the requirement that conference reports be 

read on demand; and

(7) establishing a motion to prohibit non-relevant amendments to a measure, under which “sense of the Senate” amendments would be deemed per se non-relevant, and a three-fi fths 

vote would be required to overturn a ruling of the chair on the 

relevancy of an amendment.

S. Res. 32, embodying these provisions, was referred to the 

Committee on Rules and Administration, and the identical S. 

Res. 37 was laid over, under Rule XIV. Additional resolutions 

(S. Res. 25 through S. Res. 31), consisting of individual provisions of S. Res. 32 and 37, were also referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration. None of these resolutions 

received further action.

Much subsequent discussion of the subject during the 103rd 

Congress focused on the activities of the Joint Committee on 

the Organization of Congress (JCOC), which issued its fi nal 

report (S. Rept. 103–215) in December 1993. Majority Leader Byrd discussed his proposals at hearings before the Joint 

Committee, and several other Senators testifi ed in favor of 

similar proposals. Several Senators testifying at these hearings (S. Hrg. 103–10, 103–13, 103–26, 103–74, 103–119, 103–

122, 103–128, 103–158; S. Prt. 103–55) also contended that 

fi libustering had become much more frequent, and proposed 

making cloture easier to obtain. Plans to reduce the vote required for cloture on successive motions on the same matter 

received some discussion.

Some Senators and other witnesses advocated limiting the 

use of “holds,” which are informal, confi dential requests by 

Senators to their fl oor leaders that a measure not be called 

up. These requests carry weight with party leaders because of 

their implicit threat to fi libuster a motion to consider. Some 

suggested that the names of Senators requesting holds be 

publicly available, while others proposed that placing a hold 

on a matter should require concurrence of several Senators. 

Alternatively, a member of the Joint Committee pointed out, 

limiting debate on the motion to consider would itself do much 

toward eliminating holds.
39

Some Senators also proposed prohibiting repetitive votes on 

the same subject in a single session. Finally, one witness proposed to permit the Senate, at any time during consideration 

of a measure, by majority vote on a non-debatable motion, either to impose or revoke procedures limiting debate and excluding nongermane amendments.

The Final Report of the Senate Members of the JCOC 

(S. Rept. 103–215, Vol. I) included fi ve recommendations on 

Senate Floor Procedure, each of which refl ected, sometimes 

in modifi ed form, one of the proposals earlier offered by Senator Byrd. These included limiting debate to two hours on 

the motion to proceed (except on Rules changes); requiring 

ten cosponsors for sense of the Senate or sense of Congress 

amendments not offered by a fl oor leader; counting quorum 

calls under cloture against the time of the requesting Senator; 

requiring a three-fi fths vote to overturn a ruling of the chair 

under cloture (two-thirds on Rules changes); and dispensing 

with the reading of conference reports printed and available 

for one day before their consideration.

On February 3, 1994, Senator Boren, who had been the 

Senate Co-chair of the JCOC, introduced the draft legislation 

proposed by the JCOC, including language embodying these 

fi ve recommendations, as S. 1824. The Committee on Rules 

and Administration held hearings on this measure in February through May 1994 (S. Hrg. 103–488), and reported it with 

a committee substitute on July 1. The committee substitute 

omitted the proposals for changes in fl oor procedure, the Committee having instead reported a version of these proposals 

as S. Res. 228 on June 16. S. Res. 228 omitted the proposal 

to charge time on quorum calls under cloture and added a 

provision that would have authorized the chair to rule on germaneness of amendments under cloture and required a vote 

of three-fi fths of the full Senate to overturn these rulings. 

Senator Byrd also submitted the latter proposal separately as 

S. Res. 241, which was referred to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration. None of these measures received fl oor 

consideration.

1995—When the Senate convened in January, Senator Harkin offered a proposal to change the cloture rule as an amendment 

to a routine resolution (S. Res. 14) adjusting the sizes of Senate committees. This proposal would have provided that on 

each successive cloture motion on the same matter, the supermajority required to invoke cloture be reduced by three votes 

until the required vote was equal to a majority of all Senators 

chosen and sworn. (Proceedings of this kind have sometimes 

since been referred to as a “ratchet” mechanism.) The proposal prohibited fi ling a subsequent cloture motion until the 

previous cloture motion on the same matter was disposed of. 

After debating the amendment under a time agreement, the 

Senate tabled it, 76–19.

1999—Senator Stevens submitted S. Res. 8, proposing additional 

restrictions on unauthorized appropriations, legislative provisions, and nongermane provisions appearing in Senate appropriations bills, amendments thereto, and conference reports 
40

thereon. It included a provision permitting the chair to rule 

on germaneness points of order on appropriations bills, subject to a non-debatable appeal to the Senate, the decision on 

which would set no precedent for future application of the 

rule. S. Res. 8 would also have made motions to proceed to 

consider appropriations bills non-debatable. The resolution 

was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration 

and received no further action.

2000—The Senate agreed to a standing order that conference reports would not be required to be read if they were available 

in the Senate. The standing order was enacted by reference in 

P.L. 106–554, a consolidated appropriations bill.

2001—The Senate convened with equal numbers of Senators caucusing with each of the major parties. Senate leaders of both 

parties developed an agreement to modify several features of 

Senate procedure while the body remained in this equally divided condition, and the Senate accepted this agreement by 

unanimous consent. One element of this agreement provided 

that cloture not be fi led on any amendable item of business 

during the fi rst 12 hours of its consideration. The arrangements established by this agreement lapsed in June 2001, 

when Senator Jeffords changed his status to caucus with the 

party that thereby became the majority.

2003—In a period of intense controversy over Senate action on Presidential nominations, Senator Miller proposed S. Res. 85, to 

institute a “ratchet,” or declining super-majority requirement 

on successive votes for cloture on any measure or matter, and 

Majority Leader Frist submitted S. Res. 138, which would 

have imposed this requirement only for the consideration of 

nominations. The form of “ratchet” proposed by both resolutions was similar to that of the proposal offered in 1995. Senator Miller also submitted S. Res. 249, which would have abolished paragraph 2 of Rule XXII altogether, leaving the Senate 

with no cloture rule.

All three resolutions were referred to the Committee on 

Rules and Administration. No further action occurred on S. 

Res. 85 or S. Res. 249, but the Committee held a hearing on 

S. Res. 138 on June 5, and reported it on June 24. The Senate 

considered this resolution on November 12–14, but took no 

fi nal action.

2005–2006—Beginning in the preceding Congress, the possibility 

was widely discussed of instituting more effective procedures 

for limiting consideration of matters in the Senate, possibly 

providing for the imposition of cloture by a simple majority, 

and of doing so not by adoption of a resolution changing the 

Rules, but instead by means of a ruling of the chair or of the 

Senate itself (the so-called “nuclear option”). Early in the 

109th Congress, the possibility arose that Senate leadership 

might attempt such action during consideration of a judicial 

nomination that had previously been subjected to fi libuster. 

The possibility of a “nuclear option” remained unrealized, 

however, after a bipartisan group of 14 Senators (who came to 

be called the “gang of fourteen”) reached an agreement that, 

unless extraordinary circumstances arose, they would refrain 
41

from fi libustering nominations and would support efforts to 

overcome such fi libusters.

2007–2008—No proposals to amend the cloture rule were offered. 

S. Res. 83, submitted by Senator Specter, proposed to prevent 

a Senator from “fi lling the amendment tree” by successively 

offering all the amendments that Senate practice would permit to be pending simultaneously. The majority leaders in the 

109th and 110th Congresses had used this practice with some 

frequency as a means of temporarily preventing other Senators from offering any amendments to a pending measure. S. 

Res. 83 was referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration and received no further action.

(43)

SELECTED OUTSTANDING SENATE FILIBUSTERS,

1841–2008

As the title of this chronology indicates, its contents do not present, and are not intended to present, a defi nitive or comprehensive 

identifi cation of every fi libuster that may have occurred throughout 

the history of the Senate. Its limitations stem from several causes.

For one thing, a fi libuster is not a formal procedural action; Senators do not fi libuster by “invoking a fi libuster” or making use of 

some specifi c “fi libuster rule.” Rather, a fi libuster is a strategy of 

the legislative process that may be carried out through a variety of 

actions. Accordingly, there is no technical defi nition of what exactly 

constitutes fi libustering, nor is there even a generally accepted understanding of what it may entail. Indeed, changes appear to have 

taken place over time in the character of proceedings likely to be 

called fi libustering. The term has historically been used to refer 

not only to indefi nitely extended debate, and certainly not only to 

a single long address by a single Senator, but rather to any actions 

intended to block or delay Senate approval of a bill (or other matter) 

by preventing the Senate from reaching a fi nal vote thereon. Under 

this concept, which was explicitly enunciated by one distinguished 

former Chairman of the Committee on Rules and Administration, 

fi libustering may include obstructive or dilatory proceedings of all 

kinds.

In this sense, fi libustering may also be seen as a matter of degree: 

some fi libusters may be more intense, others more nearly casual, 

and no sharp line can be drawn between fi libustering and ordinary 

opposition to a measure. In addition, if a fi libuster is defi ned by its 

intent, the question whether specifi c proceedings constitute a fi libuster must remain a matter of judgment rather than simple application of criteria, for supporters of measures may discern an intent to 

block a measure even as opponents disavow any such motivation.

Nor can the use of cloture motions be used as a defi nitive indicator of fi libustering. Filibusters are conducted by opponents of measures, while cloture is sought by supporters; the two sides may differ 

in their judgment of whether the use of cloture is needed in order 

to bring consideration to a close. Before the 1970’s, in particular, 

cloture often was not sought even after consideration of a measure 

had been long extended, whereas, especially in more recent times, 

cloture has often been sought even before, or in the absence of, any 

overt evidence of fi libustering. For all these reasons, there may be 

no universally adequate way to specify rigorously what constitutes 

a fi libuster.

These considerations help to show why the selections in this chronology may appear to meet no uniform standard. In addition, various portions of this compilation have been prepared at various times, 

by various researchers, based on various sources and approaches, 

using various criteria of selection. None of these, moreover, appear 
44

to have been recorded in any statement of method, criteria, or approach, either in the document itself or in any other form available 

to the coordinators of the present edition. As a result, the successive 

researchers who have extended the list, including those responsible 

for the current update, have, in general, remained unable to take 

account of the standards governing the approaches taken by their 

predecessors either as a guide to their own work or as a basis from 

which to advance. Nor, in general, have successive researchers had 

the capacity to revise the previous work retrospectively into consistency with their own approaches. For all these reasons, the items 

presented cannot be considered to constitute an exhaustive list of 

fi libusters, and in particular, the 1841 contest of the Senate printers 

should not defi nitively be regarded as the “fi rst fi libuster.”

For different periods, as a result, entries in the chronology may 

provide either extensive descriptions of positions and strategies in 

policy debates, summaries emphasizing courses of procedural action, 

consolidated accounts of action on several concurrent measures, or 

brief annotations only. Some entries note, while others omit, measure numbers or information on the length of consideration. For 

some periods the selection seems dictated chiefl y by whether or not 

cloture was moved; for others, scant information on any form of procedural action is offered.

The material added for the present edition of this volume, covering the years 1985 through 2008, attempts to address these ambiguities by offering a more uniform presentation and suffi cient explicitness of description to allow users to make judgments, in relation to 

the items included, by standards they deem appropriate. Each new 

entry begins by identifying the number and subject of the measure 

in question (or name and position of the nominee), including, where 

appropriate, the number of any House companion measure and of 

any resulting Public Law. It ends by giving a range of dates within 

which fl oor consideration of the matter (including both initial and fi -

nal consideration, and including any companion measure) occurred, 

and the total number of days on which any consideration actually 

occurred. These features are intended to aid further research into 

the cases selected. The body of the entry is intended to identify the 

main procedural actions and other features of consideration that 

might be taken (along with the length of consideration) to indicate 

the occurrence of a fi libuster, as well as noting the chief issues in 

controversy, their resolution, and the ultimate outcome on the measure or matter in question.

A chief source of items to be considered for inclusion in the updated chronology was an ongoing compilation maintained by the 

Congressional Research Service based on the information about 

cloture action and other proceedings on the respective matters appearing in the Legislative Information System of the U.S. Congress 

(LIS), the Daily Digest of the Congressional Record, the Journal of 

the U.S. Senate, and the list of cloture motions and action thereon 

maintained by the Senate Library. Also used were published media 

accounts, and lists of fi libusters compiled by Professors Lauren Cohen Bell of Randolph-Macon College and L. Marvin Overby of the 

University of Missouri.

For the current edition, the authors attempted to limit the items 

selected for inclusion to those that most clearly and emphatically 
45

appeared to qualify as fi libusters on the basis of actions occurring 

on the fl oor. For example, a bill that was considered over two weeks, 

with multiple cloture votes both on the bill and one or more amendments, would typically be included, especially if there was evidence 

of contention over the amendments and diffi culties in fi nding an accommodation on them. On the other hand, for example, it was common during the period covered for cloture to be moved immediately 

on a motion to proceed to consider a bill, for the Senate to turn to 

other business until the cloture vote, and when cloture was rejected, 

for the matter to receive no further action. This sequence of events 

could plausibly indicate a threatened fi libuster, but bills undergoing 

proceedings of this kind were omitted from the compilation as not 

constituting an actual fi libuster on the fl oor.

1841—A bill to remove the Senate printers was fi libustered against 

for ten days.

1841—A bill relating to the Bank of the United States was fi libustered for fourteen days and caused Senator Clay to introduce 

his cloture resolution.

1846—The Oregon Bill was fi libustered for two months.

1863—A bill to suspend the writ of habeas corpus was fi libustered.

1865—Reconstruction of Louisiana bill was fi libustered for fi ve days.

1876—An army appropriation bill was fi libustered against for twelve 

days, forcing the abandonment of a rider which would have 

suspended existing election laws.

1879—A four-day fi libuster halted repeal of election laws.

1881—A measure to reorganize the Senate was fi libustered from 

March 24 to May 16, 26 session days, by an evenly divided 

Senate, until two Senators resigned, giving the Democrats a 

majority.

1890—The Blair Education Bill was fi libustered for 26 days.

1890—The “force bill,” providing for federal supervision of elections, 

was successfully fi libustered for 29 days. This resulted in the 

cloture resolution introduced by Senator Aldrich which was 

also fi libustered and the resolution failed. Total fi libuster 

time: 33 days.

1893—An unsuccessful fi libuster lasting 46 days was organized 

against a bill for the repeal of the Silver Purchase Act.

1901—Senator Carter successfully fi libustered a River and Harbor 

for one day bill because it failed to include certain additional 

appropriations.

1903—There was a successful fi libuster against a Tri-State Bill proposing to admit Oklahoma, Arizona and New Mexico to statehood, because the measure did not include all of Indian Territory according to the original boundaries.

1903—Senator Tillman fi libustered against a defi ciency appropriation bill because it failed to include an item paying his state a 

war claim. The item was fi nally restored to the bill.

1903—A River and Harbor bill was fi libustered one day.

1907—Senator Stone fi libustered two days against a ship subsidy 

bill.

1908—Senator La Follette led a fi libuster lasting twenty-eight days 

against the Vreeland-Aldrich Emergency Currency Law. The 

fi libuster fi nally failed.
46

1911—Senator Owen fi libustered a bill proposing to admit New Mexico to statehood. The House had accepted New Mexico, but 

refused Arizona because of her proposed constitution. Senator 

Owen fi libustered against the admission of New Mexico until Arizona was restored to the measure. The bill eventually 

failed to pass. Two days.

1911—The Canadian Reciprocity Bill passed the House and failed 

because of a fi libuster in the Senate. It passed Congress in 

an extraordinary session, but Canada refused to accept the 

proposition.

1913—A fi libuster was made against the Omnibus Public Buildings 

Bill by Senator Stone until certain appropriations for his state 

were included.

1914—Senator Burton fi libustered against a River and Harbor bill 

for twelve hours. Total fi libuster time on this bill was 11 days.

1914—Senator Gronna fi libustered against acceptance of a conference report on an Indian Appropriation Bill.

1914—The following bills were debated at great length, but fi nally 

passed: Panama Canal tolls bill, 30 days; Federal Trade Commission Bill, 30 days; Clayton Amendments to the Sherman 

Act, 21 days; Conference report on the Clayton Bill, nine days.

1915—A fi libuster was organized against President Wilson’s Ship 

Purchase bill by which German ships in American ports 

would have been purchased. The fi libuster, which lasted 33 

days, was successful and as a result three important appropriation bills failed.

1917—The Armed Ship bill of President Wilson was successfully fi libustered for 23 days, and caused the defeat of many administration measures. This caused the adoption of the Martin 

resolution embodying the President’s recommendation for a 

change in the Senate Rules on limitation of debate, known as 

the cloture rule.

1919—A fi libuster was successful against an Oil and Mineral Leasing Bill, causing the failure of several important appropriation 

bills and necessitating an extraordinary session of Congress.

1919–1920–President Woodrow Wilson submitted the Treaty of Versailles (also known as the Treaty of Peace with Germany, S. 

Doc. No. 51) on July 10, 1919. The Senate Foreign Relations 

Committee reported the treaty to the Senate with a series of 

amendments and reservations on September 10, 1919. Beginning on September 15, the Senate considered the treaty for 

50 days, fi rst rejecting all attempts to amend the treaty, then 

voting on scores of reservations to it. On November 13, Majority Leader Lodge fi led a cloture motion on the resolution of 

ratifi cation, which included the reservations to the treaty to 

which the Senate had agreed. The Senate’s fi rst cloture vote 

took place on November 15, and cloture was invoked, 78–16. 

Subsequently, the Senate rejected the resolution of ratifi cation, 39–55, well short of the two-thirds majority needed to 

ratify a treaty (63, in this instance). An attempt to ratify the 

treaty without any reservations was also defeated, 38–53. A 

further attempt to ratify the treaty with a modifi ed set of reservations failed, 49–35, on March 18, 1920, and the next day, 
47

the Senate voted 47–37 to send the treaty back to the President.

1921—The Emergency Tariff bill was fi libustered against in January, 

1921, which led Senator Penrose to present a cloture petition. 

The cloture petition failed, but the tariff bill fi nally passed.

1922—The Dyer Anti-Lynching Bill was successfully fi libustered for 

four days by a group of Southern Senators.

1923—President Harding’s Ship Subsidy Bill was defeated by a fi libuster lasting two and a half months.

1925—Senator Copeland talked at length against ratifi cation of the 

Isle of Pines Treaty with Cuba, but the treaty was fi nally ratifi ed.

1926—A ten-day fi libuster against the World Court Protocol was 

ended by a cloture vote of 68–26, the second time cloture was 

adopted by the Senate; the fi rst being on the Versailles Treaty 

debate in 1919.

1926—A bill for migratory bird refuges was fi libustered by states’ 

rights advocates in the spring, a motion for cloture failing, 

46–33.

1927—Cloture again failed of adoption in 1927, when it was rejected 

by 32–59, on the Swing-Johnson Bill for development of the 

Lower Colorado River Basin. (fi ve days).

1927—One of the fi ercest of all fi libusters succeeded in March 1927 

in preventing an extension of the life of a special campaign investigating committee headed by James A. Reed of Missouri. 

The committee’s expose of corruption in the 1926 senatorial 

election victories of Frank L. Smith in Illinois and of William 

S. Vare in Pennsylvania had aroused the ire of a few Senators 

who refused to permit the continuance of the investigation despite the wishes of a clear majority of the Senate.

1933—Early in the year, a two-week fi libuster was staged against 

the Glass Branch Banking Bill, marking the fi rst time Senator Huey Long participated as a leading fi gure. “Senators 

found him impervious to sarcasm and no man could silence 

him.” Cloture was defeated by the margin of a single vote. 

Finally, the fi libuster was abandoned and the bill passed.

1935—The most celebrated of the Long fi libusters was staged on 

June 12–13. Senator Long spoke for fi fteen and one-half hours 

in favor of the Gore amendment to the proposed extension 

of the National Industrial Recovery Act. The amendment was 

fi nally tabled.

1935—An Anti-Lynching Bill was fi libustered for six days.

1938—A 29-day “feather duster” fi libuster in January-February, 

1938, defeated passage of a Federal anti-lynching bill, although a majority of the Senate clearly favored the bill.

1939—An extended fi libuster against adoption of the conference report on monetary bill (H.R. 3325), extending presidential authority to alter the value of the dollar, continued from June 20 

to July 5, 16 days. On July 5, the Senate voted 43–39 to adopt 

the conference report.

1942, 1944, 1946, 1948—Four organized fi libusters upon the perennial question of Federal anti-poll-tax legislation were successful in these years. An attempt to pass fair employment 

practice legislation in 1946 was also killed by a fi libuster. The 
48

Senate cloture rule proved ineffective in these cases as a device for breaking fi libusters.

1949—A motion to take up a resolution (S. Res. 15) to amend the 

cloture rule was debated at intervals in the Senate from February 28 to March 17, when it was amended and agreed to.

1950—A motion to take up the Fair Employment Practices Commission (FEPC) bill (S. 1728) was debated in the Senate, May 

8–19, 1950, a total of nine days. Ten Senators spoke in favor 

of the motion to take up (in support of the bill) and eight Senators spoke against the motion. According to a rough calculation, the proponents of the motion and bill used 35 percent, 

and the opponents used 65 percent, of the space in the Congressional Record devoted to the subject. During the nine-day 

period 3,414 inches of the Record were consumed with discussion of FEPC and 2,835 inches with other matters.

1950—Senator Malone fi libustered for 11 hours against the conference report on the slot machine bill (S. 3357) in December.

1953—A prolonged debate took place on the so-called “tidelands” offshore oil bill. It began April 1 and ended May 5. The tidelands 

debate lasted for 35 days, one of the longest on record. During 

this debate Senator Morse established a new record for the 

longest single speech. On April 24–25 he spoke for 22 hours 

and 26 minutes.

1954—An extended debate occurred in July, on a bill to amend the 

Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (S. 3690). The debate lasted 13 

days. On July 26 Senator Knowland sought to invoke cloture 

on S. 3690, but his motion failed, 44–42.

1957—On August 28–29, during the debate on the Civil Rights bill 

of 1957, Senator Thurmond made a 24-hour and 18-minute 

speech, the longest in Senate history.

1960—The Senate debated civil rights issues from February 15 to 

April 8. Actual debate on civil rights consumed 37 days, during which 45 roll call votes were taken. Eighteen Southern 

Senators conducted a systematic fi libuster. In an effort to 

break the fi libuster, around-the-clock sessions were held from 

February 29 through March 9. The Senate was in continuous 

session for nine days, or a total of 157 hours and 26 minutes, 

with two breaks.

1961—At the opening of the 87th Congress on January 3, Senate 

liberals sought to redeem the pledges of both party platforms 

to revise congressional procedures so that (in the language 

of the Democrats) “majority rule prevails and decisions can 

be made after reasonable debate without being blocked by a 

minority in either house.” After a week’s debate, much of it on 

the “advisory opinion” of Vice President Nixon that a majority of the Senate has a constitutional right to adopt new rules 

at the beginning of a new Congress by moving the previous 

question, two resolutions to amend the cloture rule (S. Res. 4, 

sponsored by Senator Anderson, for three-fi fths cloture, and 

S. Res. 5, sponsored by Senators Humphrey and Kuchel, for 

majority cloture) were referred to the Committee on Rules 

and Administration on January 11 by a 50–46 vote on motion 

of Senator Mansfi eld, the new Majority Leader.
49

1962—In May a Southern fi libuster against an Administrationbacked bill (S. 2750) to make anyone with a sixth grade education eligible to pass a literacy test for voting in federal elections ran for ten days. Two cloture motions, fi led by Senators 

Mansfi eld and Dirksen, failed to receive the necessary twothirds vote. The votes against cloture were 43–53 on May 9 

and 42–52 on May 14.

1962—An intermittent two-month fi libuster was conducted (June 14 

to August 14) by a group of ten “economic liberals” against the 

Administration supported communications satellite bill (H.R. 

11040). Finally, on August 14, a Mansfi eld-Dirksen motion to 

invoke cloture was adopted by a roll call vote of 63–27. Republicans voted 34–2 for cloture; Democrats 29–25. The 63 

votes in favor were three more than the two-thirds necessary 

to invoke cloture. This was the fi rst time since 1927, and only 

the fi fth time in Senate history, that the Senate voted to close 

debate on a bill.

1963—Senator Anderson on January 14 introduced a resolution, S. 

Res. 9, to lower from two-thirds to three-fi fths of the Senators 

present and voting the majority needed to invoke cloture. On 

February 15, Senator Mansfi eld fi led a cloture petition on the 

resolution. He stated that unless the cloture motion received 

the support of at least 60 Senators, he would favor laying 

aside S. Res. 9. On February 7, the Senate refused, 54–42, to 

invoke cloture on the pending motion to take up the resolution.

1964—Debate began March 9, on a motion by Majority Leader Mansfi eld to take up a House-passed civil rights bill (H.R. 7152). 

On March 16, after 16 days of debate, the Senate, by a 67–

17 vote, agreed to take up the bill. Debate on the bill began 

March 30. By the tenth week of debate almost no signifi cant 

fl oor action had been taken because Southern opponents were 

preventing fi nal disposition of the bill and its amendments. 

During the 19th week of debate a compromise was worked out 

by the Democratic leadership, Minority Leader Dirksen, and 

the Justice Department. The major changes in the bill were in 

the enforcement of Titles II and VII covering accommodations 

and fair employment practices. In both cases the Government 

was allowed to intervene only where there was a “pattern” of 

discrimination. On June 1, Mansfi eld announced he would fi le 

a petition for cloture on June 8. The Senate on June 10, for 

the fi rst time in its history voted to shut off debate on a civil 

rights bill (71–29). This vote ended a 57-day fi libuster on the 

bill itself. Including debate on the motion to take up, 74 calendar days were consumed by the fi libuster on the 1964 Civil 

Rights Act.

1964—On August 13, debate began on a proposed amendment put 

together by the Senate Republican and Democratic leadership 

and the Justice Department, authorizing temporary stays in 

the execution of any court order requiring immediate population-based reapportionment of state legislatures. The amendment, co-sponsored by Minority Leader Dirksen and Majority 

Leader Mansfi eld, was proposed as a rider to the pending foreign aid authorization bill. Dirksen had support among Sena50

tors from all sections, many of them under heavy home state 

pressure to ease the immediate court pressure for reapportionment. Criticism was voiced by liberal Members of the Senate and a mild fi libuster was launched by Senators Proxmire, 

Nelson, Douglas, Hart, and Ribicoff. By 30–63, the Senate on 

September 10 rejected a cloture motion by Minority Leader 

Dirksen to close off the Northern liberal fi libuster.

1965—On April 22, debate began on the amended Administrationbacked voting rights bill (S. 1564). The Senate leadership of 

both parties opposed a poll tax amendment in the bill after 

the Justice Department expressed doubt about its constitutionality. Accordingly, an amendment sponsored by Majority 

Leader Mansfi eld and Minority Leader Dirksen, which added 

to the bill a Congressional declaration that poll taxes infringed 

on the constitutional right to vote, was adopted on May 19. 

Senators Ellender, Talmadge, and Thurmond led the opposition overall to the bill. A cloture motion, adopted on May 25, 

70–30, set the stage for passage of the bill on the 25th day of 

debate. The approval of cloture marked only the second time 

in history, but the second time in two years, that the Senate 

had voted to close off debate on a civil rights measure.

1965—On October 4, debate began on an Administration-backed bill 

to repeal Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act. Section 14(b) 

permitted states to enact right-to-work laws banning the compulsory union shop. Debate, although directed to the repeal 

proposal itself, technically was on a motion offered October 

1 by Majority Leader Mansfi eld to make H.R. 77 the pending 

business of the Senate. The fi libuster was conducted mainly 

by Republicans and Southern Democrats and led by Minority 

Leader Dirksen. The decision to drop the fi ght for repeal was 

made after the Senate on October 11, rejected, 45–47, a motion by Mansfi eld to invoke cloture on debate. Two additional 

cloture votes taken on the bill in February 1966 failed as well.

1966—On September 7, debate on a motion to consider an Administration-supported bill (H.R. 14765), the Civil Rights Act of 

1966. Prospects for passage hinged upon Minority Leader 

Dirksen and the votes of Republican Senators. Major objections to the bill concerned Title IV (open housing provision) 

and Titles I and II (procedure respecting the selection of 

Federal and state jurors). On September 14, a motion to invoke cloture was defeated, 54–42. On September 15, Majority Leader Mansfi eld fi led a second cloture motion which was 

voted on and rejected on September 19, 52–41.

1966—On October 7, Senator Morse introduced an amendment to 

the Higher Education Act of 1963 to provide for home rule 

in the District of Columbia. The Senate had passed a home 

rule bill in 1965, but the House refused to approve the Senate 

version, passing instead a bill providing for a charter commission. Conferees never met on these entirely different bills. 

The Morse amendment was an effort to force the House into 

accepting home rule for the District. On October 10, the Senate rejected, 41–37, a motion by Majority Leader Mansfi eld to 

invoke cloture on a threatened Southern fi libuster against the 

home rule rider. After cloture failed, the Morse amendment 
51

was tabled, ending all possibility of home rule legislation in 

the 89th Congress. The short debate on the Morse amendment 

was occasioned by the leadership’s desire to push on with the 

legislative agenda as adjournment was at hand.

1967—On January 12, debate began on proposals to modify the existing cloture rule which permitted the ending of a fi libuster 

by a two-thirds vote of the Senators present. The proposed 

change advocated by Senator McGovern and other liberals 

would have permitted three-fi fths of those present and voting to end debate. Senator Russell, unoffi cial leader of those 

opposing change, was primarily supported by Senators Ervin 

and Dirksen. Majority Leader Mansfi eld fi led a cloture petition 

on January 19. When the motion was defeated on January 24, 

53–46, Senator Javits asked Majority Leader Mansfi eld to fi le 

a second cloture petition. Mansfi eld refused since no Senator 

on either side of the question was willing to change his vote.

1967—In the course of considering an investment tax credit bill 

(H.R. 6950), the Senate spent fi ve weeks further debating the 

Presidential Election Campaign Fund Act, enacted in the previous year. A group of Senators concerned about fraud and the 

allocation of money within the fund pushed for repeal of the 

law; Minority Whip Long, author of the campaign fund law, 

vehemently opposed repeal and offered a proposal to establish 

a new fund, similar to the existing one, but with more controls 

on how funds could be spent. The Senate on April 13, voted 

48–42, to repeal the law at the end of July, but on April 20, it 

also adopted Long’s amendment, 46–20. On April 25 the Senate then adopted, 64–22, Majority Leader Mansfi eld’s motion 

to recommit the bill that: 1) stripped all previously adopted 

amendments from the bill; 2) repealed the campaign fund law 

as of July 31, 1967; and 3) instructed the Finance Committee 

to report revisions of the 1966 law within six weeks. After 

it became clear that debate would continue on the campaign 

fund, Majority Leader Mansfi eld proposed to delete the repeal 

in the re-reported bill, but prohibit any expenditure from the 

fund until Congress passed a new law clarifying how the money was to be used. The Senate adopted this compromise, 93–4, 

and passed the bill, 93–1.

1968—When the Senate returned to work January 15, its pending 

business was an Administration-backed bill (H.R. 2516) which 

provided protection for civil rights workers and others exercising their federally guaranteed rights. Formal debate began 

January 18. Southerners criticized the parliamentary move 

by which H.R. 2516 had been made the pending business at 

the end of the 1967 session. In previous years, Southerners 

usually fi libustered the motion to formally begin consideration 

of civil rights legislation, but this was denied them on H.R. 

2516. Leading the opposition was Senator Ervin. On February 

6, Senator Mondale proposed an open housing amendment to 

the bill which was cosponsored by Senator Brooke and endorsed by the Leadership Council on Civil Rights. President 

Johnson urged the Senate to adopt the open housing amendment. This amendment was vigorously contested in debate by 

those opposed to it.
52

Majority Leader Mansfi eld fi led a cloture motion on February 16, which was rejected on February 20, 55–37. On February 26, the Senate defeated a second cloture motion on the 

open-housing amendment, 56–36. Minority Leader Dirksen 

was considered instrumental in the defeat of this second motion. A 59–35 vote (4 short of adoption) defeated a third motion for cloture on March 1. This motion was on a compromise 

version of the amendment introduced by Dirksen and was 

expected to be adopted. The compromise would have reduced 

coverage on the open housing amendment, exempting owneroccupied single family dwellings that were rented or sold privately.

The fourth, and fi nal, cloture vote, March 4, also came on 

the Dirksen compromise and the Senate voted to invoke cloture, 65–32. H.R. 2516 passed the Senate and eventually became law.

1968—On September 17, the Senate Judiciary Committee by an 11–6 

vote recommended the confi rmation of Justice Abe Fortas for 

the post of Chief Justice of the United States. On September 

24, Majority Leader Mansfi eld called the Senate into executive 

session and moved for the Senate to consider the nomination. 

The motion to consider the nomination was debatable, and a 

fi libuster to prevent a roll call vote on that motion began on September 25. Senator Griffi n led the fi ght against the nomination. 

This was the fi rst time cloture was sought on a nomination. 

On September 27, Mansfi eld introduced a cloture motion 

which was defeated on October 1 by 45–43. On October 2, 

President Johnson withdrew his nomination of Abe Fortas to 

be Chief Justice of the United States.

1969—Debate began on January 9 on S. Res. 9, to amend Rule XXII 

so that the votes required for cloture be changed from twothirds to three-fi fths of those present and voting. On January 

28, the Senate defeated a second attempt by Senate liberals 

to invoke cloture, the fi rst being an abortive parliamentary 

maneuver to invoke majority cloture.

1969—Lengthy debate occurred in the Senate on S. 2546, a defense 

procurement authorization bill. At issue were funds for deployment of a controversial Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Safeguard system. Senate consideration of the bill was the longest 

debate on any military measure since 1945 and one of the longest debates in the history of the Senate. Debate commenced 

July 8, with Committee Chairman Stennis arguing in favor of 

passage of the bill including the ABM provision. Opponents of 

the ABM provisions were led by Senators Cooper, Hart, and 

Gore. They argued that the ABM would not work, was obsolete before begun, was a threat to world peace, and harmful to possible arms limitation talks with the Soviet Union. 

Proponents claimed the system was necessary to protect U.S. 

missile sites, would work, and that the Russians were not upset at the thought of deployment since they themselves were 

safeguarding their sites and cities. Debate continued fairly 

constantly from July 8 to August 6. On successive roll calls 

of 50–51 (Vice President Agnew casting a negative, but unneeded, vote) and 49–51 the Senate approved the authoriza53

tion in the bill for partial deployment of Safeguard antiballistic missiles by striking down amendments which would have 

prevented deployment. This occurred on August 6. Debate on 

other parts of the bill continued through August 12. Debate 

recommenced September 3, lasting until September 18, when 

the Senate passed S. 2546. Debate occurred on this bill on 34 

days.

1970—Seven weeks of debate occurred on the Cooper-Church amendment to the Foreign Military Sales Act (S. 3429, H.R. 15628). 

The amendment was occasioned by President Nixon’s ordering 

of U.S. troops into Cambodia to eliminate Vietcong and North 

Vietnamese caches of weapons and food. The Cooper-Church 

amendment prohibited the President from retaining troops 

in Cambodia after July 1, without specifi c Congressional authorization. Administration supporters in the Senate spoke at 

length against the amendment in order to delay a vote until 

the troops had withdrawn on July 1 as scheduled by the President. Certain amendments were added to the original wording of the Cooper-Church amendment in an attempt to preserve presidential initiative in the deployment of U.S. troops 

abroad, and to underscore his constitutional powers to take 

action to protect American troops engaged in combat. Debate 

on the amendment commenced May 13. On June 24, the Senate voted 81–10 to repeal the Tonkin Gulf resolution of 1964, 

which President Johnson had used to support his escalation of 

the war in South Vietnam. On June 30, the Senate adopted a 

revised Cooper-Church amendment by vote of 58–37.

1970—A month was spent debating S.J. Res. 1, an amendment to 

the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and substitute direct election of the President and Vice President, with 

provision for a runoff election should no ticket receive 40 percent of the popular vote in the fi rst election. Opposition to the 

proposal was led by Senator Ervin, who, together with other 

Southern Senators and some Senators from small states, argued that to abolish the Electoral College would damage our 

Federal system of Government, diminish conservative political strength, diminish the power of small states, and create 

splinter parties. Proponents, led by Senators Bayh, Bellmon, 

and Hart argued that direct election would correct three 

shortcomings in the present method of electing the President: 

(1) the possibility of electing a President who receives fewer 

popular votes than his opponents; (2) the disenfranchising of 

many voters because of the unit rule which allots all a state’s 

electoral vote to the winning candidates; and (3) the problem of the independent elector. Debate on the proposal began 

September 8. The fi rst cloture vote was taken on September 

17, failed, 54–36, 6 short of the required two-thirds vote under Rule XXII. Debate continued. On September 24, Senator 

Bayh attempted to set aside the joint resolution to take up 

other noncontroversial legislation, but the Senate prevented 

it. A second cloture vote was taken September 29, which also 

failed, 53–34. Senator Mansfi eld fi led a third cloture petition 

with a vote scheduled for October 6. Proponents were unable 

to gain the necessary numbers to invoke cloture, however, so 
54

on October 5, by agreement, the proposal was set aside until 

after the Senate returned from the election recess. S.J. Res. 

1 was never taken up and died with the adjournment of the 

91st Congress.

1970—President Nixon’s welfare plan (Family Assistance Plan) was 

passed by the House in April (H.R. 16311). In November the 

House passed a Shoe-Textile Import Quotas bill (H.R. 18970) 

which would have curtailed the importation of foreign-made 

shoes and textiles into the United States. In the Senate, 

amended versions of both these measures were attached to 

the Social Security Amendment Act of 1970 (H.R. 17550) by 

the Finance Committee. This measure was reported to the 

fl oor of the Senate late in the session. Opponents of one or the 

other of these measures began at once to fi libuster against 

them December 17. With Congress heading toward expiration 

of its term, Senator Long, chairman of the Finance Committee, agreed to drop the controversial FAP and Trade Quota 

attachments to the Social Security benefi ts’ increase.

1970—The Senate and the House became embroiled over the appropriation of funds for a controversial Supersonic Transport. 

The House had approved $290 million for continued construction of the plane in the Transportation Appropriations Act for 

fi scal 1971 (H.R. 17755). The Senate had voted to strike all 

funds for continued development. Senate conferees, however, 

agreed to a $210 million compromise. Senator Proxmire took 

exception to this agreement and began to fi libuster the conference report on December 16. Minority Leader Scott fi led a 

cloture petition immediately. It was defeated on December 19, 

43–48. A second cloture attempt failed on December 22, by a 

42–44 vote. Following a Christmas recess, a compromise was 

worked out and Congress passed a continuing appropriation 

for the Department of Transportation and related agencies, 

funding their activities, including the SST, through March 30, 

1971, at the levels approved in H.R. 17755. Assurances were 

given to opponents of the SST that a separate vote on continuance of the plane would be held in 1971.

1971—On January 25, the Senate began debate on S. Res. 9 to 

amend Rule XXII to reduce the number of votes required to 

invoke cloture from two-thirds to three-fi fths of those present and voting. During six weeks of debate, proponents of the 

Rules change tried unsuccessfully to invoke cloture on four 

occasions. After the rejection of the fourth cloture motion, the 

Senate abandoned attempts to reform Rule XXII in the 92nd 

Congress.

1971—The attempt to obtain a two-year extension of the draft (H.R. 

6531) provoked lengthy debate on (1) the merits of the nation’s conscription system and (2) the war in Vietnam. Those 

who favored speedy U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam sponsored 

a number of amendments to H.R. 6531 stipulating a date 

certain for withdrawal of all U.S. troops from Indochina. For 

example, the Senate defeated the McGovern-Hatfi eld amendment but adopted an amendment sponsored by Majority 

Leader Mansfi eld requiring the withdrawal of all U.S. troops 
55

from Indochina within nine months, subject to the release of 

all American prisoners of war.

Senator Gravel and other opponents of the war and the 

draft hoped to continue debate indefi nitely on the bill. On 

June 23, however, the Senate invoked cloture, 65–27. It was 

only the ninth time that the Senate had invoked cloture since 

the adoption of Rule XXII in 1917 and the fi rst time since 

1968. Cloture was largely attributable to the support of Senators who had never before voted to restrict debate—Bible, Ervin, Hansen, Hollings, Jordan, Sparkman, Stennis, Talmadge, 

and Thurmond. These Senators argued that the extension of 

the draft was vital to the national security and outweighed 

their preference for unlimited debate.

When the House refused to adopt the Mansfi eld amendment in conference, Senators Gravel and Cranston attempted 

to begin another fi libuster over approval of the conference report. On September 13, the Senate began its consideration of 

the conference report. On September 21, cloture was invoked, 

61–30. Immediately after cloture was invoked, the Senate approved the conference report, 55–30.

1971—The Administration’s proposal to guarantee a $250 million 

bank loan to Lockheed Aircraft Corporation prompted one of 

the most closely fought legislative battles of the 92nd Congress. The Senate bill, S. 2308, established a program authorizing federal loan guarantees of up to $250 million to failing 

businesses judged essential to the national economy. To bring 

S. 2308 to the public’s attention, Senator Proxmire and others 

began a lengthy debate.

Proponents of the bill, including Senator Tower, ranking minority member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs 

Committee, and Senator Sparkman, Chairman of the Committee, said Senator Proxmire was leading a fi libuster to prevent the Senate from voting on the measure before the scheduled August 6 recess.

Almost immediately after the debate began (July 21), Senators Tower and Sparkman circulated a cloture petition. The 

fi rst attempt to invoke cloture came on July 26, and failed, 

42–47. Two days later a second attempt was defeated 59–39.

Senator Proxmire offered to cooperate in ending debate if S. 

2308 were withdrawn in favor of a bill that guaranteed a loan 

to Lockheed only. After a third unsuccessful attempt (July 30) 

to invoke cloture, Proxmire’s compromise was agreed to. On 

Friday, July 30, the House passed 192–189 a loan guarantee 

of $250 million to Lockheed. On Monday, August 2, the Senate 

passed the House bill, H.R. 8432, by a 49–48 vote.

1971—President Nixon’s nomination of William H. Rehnquist, Assistant Attorney General in the Department of Justice, to fi ll the 

Supreme Court vacancy created by the retirement of Associate Justice John Marshall Harlan, provoked one of the briefest debates ever to be termed a Senate fi libuster. After fi ve 

days of hearings on the nominations of Rehnquist and Lewis 

F. Powell, Jr., to the Court, the Senate Judiciary Committee 

fi led reports on November 30, certifying that both men were 

qualifi ed to serve on the Court. After perfunctory debate, the 
56

Senate confi rmed Powell’s appointment on December 6, 89–1. 

That same afternoon, discussion began on the confi rmation 

of Rehnquist. Senator Bayh, who played a major role in the 

fi ght against confi rmation of two earlier Nixon appointees to 

the Court, Judge Clement Haynsworth and Judge G. Harrold Carswell, urged the Senate to thoroughly consider the 

Rehnquist nomination before making a fi nal decision.

Senator Bayh and others expressed doubt about Rehnquist’s 

sensitivity on questions of equal rights for minorities and 

on other constitutional questions. Those who supported the 

Rehnquist nomination, including Minority Whip Griffi n, asserted that opponents of the nomination were trying to delay the nomination indefi nitely while Congress was seeking 

to adjourn sine die. On December 7, Senator Griffi n charged 

Senator Bayh with leading a fi libuster against a nomination 

which had overwhelming Senate support. On December 8, 

Senate Minority Leader Hugh Scott of Pennsylvania fi led a 

cloture motion. That attempt failed, 52–42. After cloture was 

rejected, Senator Bayh moved to postpone fi nal consideration 

of the nomination until January 18, 1972, in order to give 

Senators additional time to consider the nomination. The Senate rejected Senator Bayh’s motion 70–22. After losing this 

vote, Senator Bayh was no longer willing to delay the Senate 

vote on the nomination; that same afternoon the Senate confi rmed Rehnquist’s appointment to the Court, 68–26.

1972—An attempt to broaden the powers of the Equal Employment 

Opportunities Commission (EEOC) was fi libustered briefl y 

before it was fi nally passed on February 22. Since the establishment of the Commission under the Civil Rights Act 

of 1964, advocates had pushed for legislation to grant EEOC 

broad enforcement powers, particularly the authority to issue cease-and-desist orders to employers who failed to comply 

with Federal equal employment opportunity standards. That 

authority was granted the Commission in S. 2515, a measure 

reported in October 1971 from the Committee on Labor and 

Public Welfare.

Floor debate began on January 19, with Labor and Public Welfare Chairman Senator Williams and ranking minority member Senator Javits strongly supporting the committee 

bill. Senators Ervin and Allen were among the chief opponents of S. 2515. Senator Dominick led those who supported 

the Administration’s position, i.e., that the Commission’s enforcement powers should be through court suits rather than 

through their own cease-and-desist orders.

Refusing to accept the cease-and-desist provisions of S. 

2515, Dominick and others defeated two attempts to invoke 

cloture on the bill. The fi rst came on February 1 and failed, 

48–37. A second attempt two days later failed, 53–35.

On February 15, after twice rejecting earlier attempts to 

substitute language deleting the Commission’s cease-and-desist powers, the Senate adopted, 45–39, an amendment sponsored by Senator Dominick to provide court enforcement of 

the Commission fi ndings. The Senate then invoked cloture on 

February 22, by a vote of 71–23 and passed S. 2515, 73–16.
57

1972—The question of adopting an interim U.S.-Soviet arms control 

pact—S.J. Res. 241—led to a fi libuster by those desiring to 

amend the agreement, a fi libuster that came as a surprise to 

the backers of S.J. Res. 241. On August 3, the Senate ratifi ed a U.S.-Soviet treaty limiting the number of anti-ballistic 

missile systems that each nation could possess. During the 

debate on the treaty, Senator Jackson announced that he and 

Senators Scott and Allott would propose an amendment to 

S.J. Res. 241, a follow on executive agreement that limited 

strategic offensive weapons, that would establish conditions 

for negotiations aimed at a permanent offensive weapons 

agreement. The amendment stipulated (1) that any future 

agreement should assure nuclear equality for both nations; (2) 

that U.S. efforts in defense-related research and development 

should continue; and (3) that failure to successfully negotiate 

an offensive weapons agreement by 1977 would be grounds 

for abrogating the ABM treaty.

Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Fulbright urged 

that the amendment be rejected, and he charged the supporters of the amendment with fi libustering against the agreement itself. When Jackson and Fulbright could not agree on 

a schedule for consideration of the Jackson amendment and 

possible amendments to the Jackson amendment, the Senate 

deferred additional action on the agreement until after its August 19 recess for the Republican convention.

When the Senate reconvened on September 5, Senate leaders were still unable to reach a scheduling agreement acceptable to both opponents and supporters of the Jackson amendment. On September 13, Senators Mansfi eld and Scott headed 

the list of those signing a cloture petition to end debate on 

the Jackson amendment and the interim arms control agreement. On Thursday, September 14, the Senate invoked cloture, 76–15. After rejecting substitute amendments by Senators Fulbright, Symington, and Muskie, the Senate approved 

the Jackson amendment, 56–35. Shortly thereafter, the Senate gave fi nal approval to the agreement itself, 88–2.

1972—Legislation establishing an independent Consumer Protection Agency (CPA) was blocked by a fi libuster during the closing days of the 92nd Congress. S. 3970, sponsored by Senators 

Ribicoff, Percy, and Javits, would have created an independent non-regulatory agency authorized to represent consumer 

interests during formal and informal court proceedings involving Federal agencies. In addition, the CPA could be called 

in by state governments to assist in agency proceedings or 

court action at the state and local level which affected consumer interests.

The Senate began its debate on S. 3970 on September 21. 

Five days later the Senate defeated an amendment offered by 

Senator Allen which would have restricted the new agency’s 

involvement in court actions affecting consumer interests. 

Following the defeat of the Allen amendment, Senators Ervin 

and Allen began a fi libuster to prevent proponents of the bill 

from bringing the measure to a vote.
58

On September 29 the Senate defeated an attempt to invoke 

cloture, 47–29. On October 3, the Senate again refused to 

curtail debate, defeating a second cloture motion, 55–32. Following an unsuccessful attempt by Senator Percy to arrange 

a compromise to curtail debate, the Senate defeated a third 

cloture motion 52–30, thus preventing the passage of S. 3970.

1972—Senate action on H.R. 13195, an anti-busing bill passed by 

the House, was blocked by a fi libuster as the 92nd Congress 

drew to a close. Known as the Equal Education Opportunities Act, H.R. 13195 would have sharply narrowed the circumstances in which busing could be used to combat segregation 

in public elementary and secondary schools. Furthermore, the 

bill would have called for a reevaluation of all previous busing orders by federal courts and agencies in light of the new 

restrictions set forth in the bill.

Anticipating a possible delay in the Senate Labor and Public Welfare Committee, the bill’s proponents, led by Senator 

Allen, succeeded in having H.R. 13195 placed directly on the 

calendar without referral to the appropriate standing committee. Supporters of the bill, fearing a fi libuster, fi led a cloture 

petition on October 6, before debate had formally begun. The 

fi rst vote on cloture came on October 10, and failed by a 45–37 

margin.

Proponents of the bill, including Senators Griffi n and Baker, charged that opponents of H.R. 13195 were conducting a 

fi libuster to prevent a vote on the bill from taking place. The 

next day, a second cloture vote failed 49–39. Among those 

voting for cloture was Senator McClellan, the last remaining 

Senator to have never before voted for cloture. On Thursday, 

October 12, a third cloture vote failed, 49–38. Shortly thereafter, the Senate agreed to take up consideration of the Supplemental Appropriation Act of 1973, thus abandoning for 1972 

any attempt to curtail school busing.

1973–74—An effort to attach campaign fi nancing legislation to the 

Debt Ceiling bill, H.R. 11104, provoked a four day fi libuster 

that for two days left the United States Treasury without the 

legal authority to borrow money.

The situation arose when an amendment by Senators Kennedy and Scott providing for the public fi nancing of congressional and Presidential elections was adopted by the Senate; 

H.R. 11104 had been previously passed by the House. The 

House, however, refused to accept the Senate amendments, 

and a compromise was worked out whereby the Senate would 

remove the provisions for public fi nancing in congressional 

campaigns and repass the measure with public fi nancing only 

for Presidential elections. It was at this point that Senator 

Allen, who opposed all of the public fi nancing provisions, initiated his fi libuster, thus preventing the bill from going to a 

conference committee. During four days of debate, including 

sessions on both Saturday and Sunday, the Senate twice defeated cloture motions, 47–33 (December 2) and 49–39 (December 3). Since it was estimated that the Government 

would be bankrupt by the end of the week unless the debt 

ceiling was raised and extended as provided in H.R. 11104, 
59

the Senate agreed to drop all public fi nancing provisions 

and pass the bill.

The issue, however, was not dead, as public fi nancing proponents agreed to drop their fi ght only upon the guarantee 

that the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration 

would report out public fi nancing legislation early in 1974. 

Another fi libuster mounted against this bill, S. 3044, was defeated, 64–30, on April 9, 1974 (an earlier attempt at cloture 

during debate on S. 3044 had failed, 60–36, on April 4). This 

bill, the Federal Election Campaign Act Amendments of 1974, 

eventually became Public Law 93–443, although the public fi -

nancing provisions pertained only to Presidential campaigns.

1974—Four attempts at invoking cloture failed as the Senate debated the Consumer Protection Act, S. 707, for nearly two 

months. The bill was heavily lobbied on both sides. The Consumer Federation of America, Ralph Nader’s Congress Watch, 

and the AFL–CIO supported the measure, while the National 

Association of Manufacturers and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce opposed it, Senators Allen and Ervin led the fi libuster, 

basing their opposition on the bill’s provisions for an independent Consumer Protection Agency. Proponents of S. 707 

predicted that the issue would be raised again in the 94th 

Congress.

The dates and votes of the four cloture attempts follow: July 

30 (56–42), August 1 (59–39), August 20 (59–35), September 

19 (64–34).

1974—A series of six cloture votes (four successful) on fi ve different 

measures occurred during the last week of the 93rd Congress 

(December 13–20). Notable was a fi libuster led by Senator 

Allen on a technical amendment, regarding school desegregation, to a Supplemental Appropriations Bill conference report. The amendment was offered after the conference report 

had passed the Senate. The fi libuster to prevent its inclusion 

lasted fi ve days; cloture was successfully invoked on the fi rst 

attempt, December 14.

At roughly the same time, the Senate had been considering a conference report extending the Export-Import Act (debate began on November 26). Four attempts to invoke cloture 

failed and the report was twice returned to the conference 

committee by the Senate with instructions to include the Senate position on a number of issues. When fi nal passage came 

on December 19, the report had been so amended.

Also, at the end of the session, the Senate invoked cloture 

on three bills (Trade Reform on December 13; Social Services 

on December 17; and Upholstery Import Regulations/Taxes 

and Tariffs on December 17) primarily to ensure germaneness 

of amendments rather than to cut off debate. In fact, cloture 

motions were fi led prior to the beginning of debate on these 

measures and the purpose was also announced at this time.

1975—Prior to adoption of a modifi ed cloture rule, the Senate voted 

under the old cloture rule to end debate on House amendments to S. 281, the Regional Railroad Reorganization Act 

Amendments of 1975. The vote to close debate was 86–8. Debate on the measure had only fi lled part of three days, but 
60

cloture was invoked primarily to insure adequate funding of 

certain railroads facing bankruptcy at the end of February.

1975—Two additional cloture votes under the old Rule XXII were 

taken in the course of Senate debate on a modifi ed fi libuster 

rule. S. Res. 4, as introduced, proposed to reduce the required 

vote to close debate to three-fi fths of those Senators present 

and voting. Parliamentary maneuvers by several Senators, 

most notably Senator Allen, prevented the Senate from taking 

a vote to close debate by a simple majority. In a compromise 

measure, the Senate overturned an earlier vote by which it 

had affi rmed its right to close debate on a Rules change at 

the start of a Congress by a simple majority. In so doing, the 

Senate reaffi rmed the doctrine of the Senate as a continuing 

body. A compromise resolution was substituted for the original language of S. Res. 4 and provided that cloture could be 

invoked, except on matters relating to Senate Rules, by threefi fths vote of all Senators duly elected and sworn. In matters 

relating to Senate Rules, cloture could be invoked by a twothirds vote of those Members present and voting. Cloture was 

invoked on this compromise language twice, on March 5, and 

on March 7, in both cases by votes of 73–21.

1975—The Senate established a new record for unsuccessful cloture 

votes taken on one measure during its consideration of the 

New Hampshire senatorial contest. During 24 days of consideration of S. Res. 166 expressing the sense of the Senate on 

certain procedural questions surrounding the New Hampshire 

dispute, six cloture votes were taken, and all failed to receive 

the necessary sixty votes to close debate. The issue was resolved when the contestants for the Senate seat agreed to 

withdraw their claims and participate in a new election. The 

Senate, in an amendment to S. Res. 54 (providing funds for 

the Select Committee on Nutrition), declared the seat vacant 

and postponed further consideration of S. Res. 166 indefi nitely. The dates and votes on the six cloture motions are as follows: June 24 (57–39); June 25 (56–41); June 26 (54–40); July 

8 (57–38); July 9 (57–38); and July 10 (54–38).

1975—The Tax Reduction Act of 1975 was the fi rst measure to be 

brought to a vote through the revised cloture rule. Senator Hollings fi led cloture motions shortly after the bill was 

brought to the Senate fl oor in order to end debate and pass 

the tax bill before a spring recess. The Senate failed to invoke 

cloture on March 20, by one vote, 59–58; a cloture vote the 

following day passed, 83–13.

1975—The consumer protection agency bill which had been successfully fi libustered in the 93rd Congress passed in the 94th Congress after the Senate invoked cloture on May 13, 71–27. The 

bill had been pending before the Senate for fi ve days.

1975—A resolution expressing the disapproval of the Senate toward 

the removal of oil price ceilings was tabled after the Senate 

failed to invoke cloture on July 28, 54–38. The resolution had 

been debated by the Senate for six days.

1975—The fi rst Senate fi libuster after the August recess was directed in favor of a series of anti-busing amendments offered 

by Senators Byrd and Biden to the Labor-HEW Appropria61

tions Bill. Under the principal direction of Senator Byrd, the 

fi libusters were determined to force a recorded vote on the 

anti-busing amendments. It was thought by many that a vote 

to table the amendments would pass, but that if a recorded 

vote on the amendments themselves could be forced, the antibusing provisions would be passed. One cloture motion failed, 

46–48. After the Senate voted 51–45 to pass the Byrd antibusing amendments, a second cloture motion was approved 

64–33 on September 24. The bill was before the Senate for 

eight days.

1975—Three separate motions, all offered by Majority Leader Mansfi eld, were eventually required to end debate on the Common 

Situs Picketing Bill (H.R. 5900). Opposition to the measure 

was led principally by Senator Helms. On November 11, the 

Senate adopted a motion to close debate on the motion to consider the bill. On November 14, a motion to close debate on 

the bill itself failed of adoption, 58–31. A second cloture motion was adopted on November 18, 62–37. Debate on the Common Situs Picketing Bill fi lled all or part of ten days.

1976—The fi rst Senate fi libuster of the year occurred during consideration of H.R. 8529, the Rice Production Act. The bill sought 

to remove limitations on the production of rice to change to 

a target price system from a quota system. Opponents of the 

measure, most notably Louisiana Senators Long and Johnston, sought to delay consideration of the bill until the results 

of a price producer referendum required by the existing production law were announced by the Department of Agriculture. Supporters of the bill argued that H.R. 8529 established 

a new rice production policy and that the requirements of the 

existing law ought not prevent the Congress from changing 

that law. Senator Bumpers’ motion to bring debate to a close 

was adopted, 70–19 on February 3. The bill had been before 

the Senate for fi ve days.

1976—Two successful cloture votes were required to end debate on 

a bill amending the Federal antitrust laws, H.R. 8532. The 

fi rst cloture vote on June 3 occurred on a Senate substitute 

to the House passed version of the bill. Cloture was invoked, 

67–22. Opponents of the measure, most notably Senators Allen and Senator Hruska, had submitted a large number of 

amendments prior to the cloture vote. To delay consideration 

of the bill after cloture, the opponents frequently sought to 

have the amendments read in full, demanded “live” quorum 

calls, called for the yeas and nays on nearly every vote, and 

frequently objected to routine unanimous consent requests. 

The fi nal vote on the Senate substitute occurred fi ve days after cloture was invoked the fi rst time. A second cloture vote 

was necessary to end debate when the Senate leadership offered an amendment to the House approved version of the bill. 

The second fi libuster began on August 27, cloture was invoked 

on the bill on August 31, 63–27, and a fi nal vote on passage 

of the measure occurred on September 8. After cloture was 

invoked, opponents of the measure called up many of their 

amendments fi led prior to the cloture vote. At one point on 

August 31, 113 amendments to the bill were pending. Seven 
62

points of order were raised against various amendments on 

the grounds that the amendments were dilatory. The Chair 

sustained only two points of order. The measure was pending 

before the Senate for fourteen days.

1976—Opposition to the Civil Rights Attorney’s Fee bill (S. 2278) 

led to the fourth successful cloture vote of the second session. 

The measure was brought before the Senate on September 

21, and cloture was invoked on September 23, 63–26. However, numerous amendments had been fi led on the bill prior 

to the cloture vote, and signifi cant delay resulted from their 

consideration, and from additional procedural motions offered 

by opponents of the bill. The measure was before the Senate 

for seven days, of which four days’ consideration occurred after cloture had been invoked.

1977—In one of his fi rst acts as President, Jimmy Carter issued 

a proclamation offering a conditional pardon for most Vietnam-era draft evaders. In the Senate, opponents of President 

Carter’s pardon plan offered a sense of the Senate resolution 

(S. Res. 18) expressing Senate opposition to the President’s 

pardon. Opponents of the pardon, led by Senators Allen and 

Helms, sought to obtain a direct Senate vote on the resolution 

of disapproval. An attempt to end debate on the resolution 

failed when a cloture motion was rejected on January 24, 53–

43. The following day, the resolution was tabled by a 48–46 

vote. The measure was before the Senate intermittently for 

more than two weeks.

1977—The Senate failed to agree on proposed changes in the cloture 

rule when a compromise acceptable to most Senators in both 

parties could not be reached. The proposal, S. Res. 5, introduced by Majority Leader Byrd, sought to reduce the opportunities for delay once the Senate had voted to invoke cloture. 

As the resolution came before the Senate on May 9, it provided that cloture could not be invoked until a measure had been 

before the Senate for at least one day, limited to 50 hours the 

amount of time for debate after cloture was invoked, counted 

against the 50 hours the time needed for quorum calls and 

votes, and permitted the Senate to extend or further reduce 

the 50-hour limit by a two-thirds vote.

Opposition to the proposal, minority party Senators led by 

Minority Leader Baker, led to the submission of a compromise 

substitute, drafted by Majority Leader Byrd, in an attempt to 

gain minority party support for the measure. However, the 

compromise measure raised concerns among some supporters 

of the earlier version of S. Res. 5. The measure was laid aside 

without any attempt being made to invoke cloture. No fi nal 

vote was taken on passage of either S. Res. 5 or the Byrd 

substitute. The Senate Republican and Democratic leaders 

subsequently appointed task forces to study the problem of 

post-cloture delays, and to report their recommendations for 

appropriate Senate Rules revisions.

1977—Efforts to enact legislation to provide public fi nancing of 

congressional general election campaigns were halted by a 

successful fi libuster. The bill, S. 926, combined revisions in 

existing laws relating to public fi nancing of presidential elec63

tions, with a new title establishing a congressional election 

campaign fund supported through personal income tax allotments. Opponents of the congressional campaign fi nancing 

provisions, led by Minority Leader Baker, and others, charged 

that public fi nancing would give congressional incumbents yet 

another advantage in seeking re-election. Three cloture votes 

were taken on the measure, and all failed to achieve the necessary sixty votes. On July 29, the fi rst cloture motion failed 

49–45; on August 1, a second motion failed, 47–46, and a third 

motion failed on August 2, 52–46. After the failure of the third 

cloture vote, the Senate adopted, 58–39, an amendment by 

Senator Allen to delete the congressional campaign fi nancing 

provisions from the bill. In this modifi ed form, the bill passed 

the Senate, but was never brought to the fl oor of the House. 

The measure was pending before the Senate for eight days.

1977—The natural gas deregulation bill, S. 2104, part of President 

Carter’s comprehensive energy program, fi nally passed the 

Senate after the Senate was able to halt a post-cloture fi libuster which had continued over thirteen days. The Senate 

began consideration of the bill on September 19; three days 

later, the Senate refused to table a substitute offered by Senators Bentsen and Pearson providing for the eventual end of 

price controls on newly discovered natural gas. Seeing that 

a majority supported the concept of deregulation, opponents 

announced their intention to fi libuster the Bentsen-Pearson 

substitute. On September 26, the Senate invoked cloture on 

the Bentsen-Pearson substitute, 77–17. Opponents of deregulation, led by Senators Abourezk and Metzenbaum, began a 

post-cloture fi libuster. The Senators called up amendments 

fi led prior to the cloture vote, refused unanimous consent 

requests, forced the reading of amendments in full, and required frequent roll call votes on amendments. After a session 

lasting 37 consecutive hours (September 27–28), the Senate 

agreed to a motion by Majority Leader Byrd to recommit the 

bill, and to immediately return the bill, amended to include 

new compromise language, to the fl oor. Some supporters of 

full deregulation refused to support the compromise, took up 

the post-cloture fi libuster, and were subsequently joined by 

those Senators who opposed all end to price controls. The fi libuster was broken when, on October 3, the Senate sustained 

several key parliamentary rulings by the presiding offi cer, 

Vice President Mondale. The Vice President ruled amendments to the Bentsen-Pearson compromise dilatory and out 

of order, because they did not apply to the new compromise 

bill which had become the pending business on September 

29. The Vice President was also sustained in a ruling that 

permitted Senators to withdraw their own fi led amendments, 

thus limiting the ability of Senators to call up amendments 

offered by others. Also upheld by the Senate was a ruling from 

the Vice President that a quorum call may not be demanded under certain circumstances. As a result of these rulings, 

many amendments were ruled out of order, and opponents of 

natural gas deregulation ended their post-cloture fi libuster. 

On October 4, the Senate voted 50–46 to accept the modifi ed 
64

Bentsen-Pearson substitute, and the bill passed the same day 

by voice vote. The bill had been pending before the Senate for 

more than three weeks.

1978—Over the course of ten weeks, the Senate devoted thirty-eight 

days to debate two proposed treaties with Panama relating to 

the future status of the Panama Canal and the Canal Zone. 

The fi rst pact, a neutrality treaty, gave the United States and 

Panama the permanent right jointly to defend the Canal, and 

provided that the canal was to remain open to all ships in 

times of peace and war. The second treaty ceded the Panama 

Canal to the Republic of Panama, effective in 1999; until that 

time, the Panamanian government was, in stages, to assume 

greater involvement in canal operations and management. 

The neutrality treaty passed the Senate on March 16, and 

the cession treaty passed the Senate on April 18. The fi nal 

passage of both treaties was 68–32. No attempt was made to 

invoke cloture on either treaty, nor were cloture efforts undertaken against any of the several “reservations,” or clarifying 

amendments, offered to either of the treaties.

1978—The Senate equaled a record it established during the New 

Hampshire Senate seat contest of 1975 when it failed six times 

during June to invoke cloture on the proposed labor reform 

bill, H.R. 8410. Two of the unsuccessful cloture votes occurred 

on the original version of the bill; the remaining four were 

taken on an amendment in the nature of a substitute offered 

by Majority Leader Byrd. The bill sought to ease restrictions 

in existing law so as to grant greater freedom to labor unions 

in seeking to organize workers. Opponents of the measure, 

led by Senators Helms, Lugar, and Hatch, organized a traditional fi libuster in which a group of a dozen Senators shared 

control of the Senate fl oor, preventing the conduct of all but 

routine business. On June 8, the Senate rejected a cloture motion on H.R. 8410 as reported, 42–47; the following day, a second cloture vote failed, 49–41. Four additional cloture votes 

were taken on the Byrd substitute; the days and votes are 

as follows: June 13, 54–43; June 14, 58–41; June 15, 58–39; 

June 22, 53–45. After the failure of the sixth cloture vote, the 

Senate agreed to recommit the bill to committee, with the understanding that “if and when” it was reported back, the bill 

would become the pending business of the Senate. The bill 

was not reported back from committee in the 95th Congress. 

The bill was the pending business before the Senate for seventeen days.

1978—The fi nal Senate fi libuster of the 95th Congress occurred 

on the energy tax bill (H.R. 5263) conference report, part of 

President Carter’s energy package. The House had passed the 

President’s energy package in the form of one bill, with several different titles; the Senate had divided the bill into fi ve 

parts. Conferees then met on each of the fi ve parts; Senate 

conferees submitted fi ve separate reports, and House conferees sought to combine the fi ve reports again into one package. Opponents of natural gas deregulation, led by Senator 

Abourezk, sought to prevent consideration of the energy tax 

conference report, in hope of forcing the House vote on each 
65

of the remaining individual conference reports in the package. 

It was the aim of Senate opponents to force a separate House 

vote on natural gas deregulation. If given the chance for a 

separate vote, it was thought that the House would oppose 

deregulation. When the energy tax conference report came before the Senate on October 12, Senator Abourezk forced the 

reading of the report in full; Majority Leader Byrd immediately fi led a cloture motion, and laid the bill aside temporarily 

until a cloture vote could be taken. On October 14, the Senate 

invoked cloture, 71–13, but Senator Abourezk, using a variety 

of parliamentary tactics, prevented a vote on the conference 

report for nearly sixteen hours. When it became clear that 

the House would not take a separate vote on the natural gas 

deregulation measure, Senator Abourezk ended his fi libuster, 

and the conference report was passed 60–17.

1979—Early in the 96th Congress, the Senate tightened its Rules to 

prevent a minority of its members from using post-cloture fi libuster tactics to delay or kill a bill. On February 22, the Senate approved S. Res. 61, which provided that when three-fi fths 

of the Senate voted to invoke cloture on a measure, a fi nal 

vote on it is to occur after no more than 100 hours of further 

consideration, including quorum calls and roll call votes. The 

measure also incorporated several fl oor amendments, largely 

intended to protect the rights of individual Senators during 

the 100 hours. The 78–16 vote came almost six weeks after 

Majority Leader Byrd had fi rst introduced a more comprehensive measure. That measure, S. Res. 9, developed strong opposition, and ultimately only the provisions on procedure under 

cloture, embodied in S. Res. 61, were considered. The Senate 

spent fi ve days on S. Res. 61, during the fi rst legislative day 

of the Congress, preserving the possibility of Senators ending 

debate by majority vote on attempts to change the Rules.

1979—During the fi rst session of the 96th Congress the Senate 

invoked cloture on only one measure, H.R. 3919, which proposed a windfall profi ts tax on domestic crude oil. Earlier in 

the session the House had approved an oil windfall profi ts 

tax, but the Senate Finance Committee had reported a bill 

with a smaller tax proposal. An impasse developed between 

Senators from oil states and others who opposed taxing oil 

discovered since 1978. Consideration of the bill began on 

November 15 with numerous amendments proposed. Majority Leader Byrd fi led four petitions to invoke cloture, three 

of which failed. Cloture was fi nally invoked on December 17, 

84–14. H.R. 3919 passed the same day, but not in time to fi nish conference action before the fi rst session adjourned. This 

measure was the pending business in the Senate for 21 days.

1980—Cloture was invoked for the fi rst time in 1980 to end Senate 

debate on the confi rmation of William A. Lubbers of Maryland to be General Counsel of the National Labor Relations 

Board. The vote came after a four-day fi libuster by Senators 

who argued that Mr. Lubbers, an employee of the NLRB, was 

too closely identifi ed with labor unions to be an independent 

counsel. Majority Leader Byrd fi led two cloture motions, the 

second of which was adopted on April 22, 62–34. The nomina66

tion, which was confi rmed on April 23, had been the Senate’s 

pending business for six days.

1980—The Senate failed three times to limit debate on the conference report on a measure (H.R. 10) to protect the rights of 

persons in state institutions. The fi libuster began on April 23, 

and cloture petitions fi led by Majority Leader Byrd and Senators Bayh and DeConcini failed. Cloture was fi nally invoked 

on May 1, after another petition fi led by Majority Leader Byrd 

was adopted, 60–34. H.R. 10 was then set aside until May 6 

for consideration under a six-hour time agreement. The measure passed the Senate that day after having been the pending business of the Senate for eight days.

1980—President Carter’s military draft registration plan passed the 

Senate on June 12 after opposition stretched consideration 

over seven days, including one all-night session. H.J. Res. 521 

was laid before the Senate on June 3, 1980, and a cloture motion was fi led by Majority Leader Byrd on June 6. Cloture was 

invoked, 62–32, but a post-cloture fi libuster was attempted 

for another two days. A unanimous consent agreement was 

reached for a fi nal vote, and on June 12 the measure passed 

after having been the pending Senate business for eight days.

1980—After two unsuccessful attempts to invoke cloture on the nomination of Don Zimmerman of Maryland to the National Labor 

Relations Board, the Senate voted to limit debate and confi rmed him on August 5. On August 1 and 4, cloture motions 

fi led by Majority Leader Byrd failed to receive a three-fi fths 

vote. A third motion fi led by Senator Byrd was agreed to, 63–

31 on August 5. Opponents of the nomination had criticized 

President Carter’s choice because they feared his support of 

labor might affect the labor board’s traditional political balance. The nomination was the pending business for six days.

1980—On August 19, the Senate passed H.R. 39, known as the 

Alaska Lands bill, after an unusual parliamentary tangle. 

Debate began on the measure on July 21. Before recessing 

on August 5, the Senate voted to again take it up on August 

18 and to vote on a cloture motion fi led by Majority Leader 

Byrd. Cloture was necessary because, in spite of a time agreement, Senator Gravel, an opponent of the measure, was able 

successfully to use a series of parliamentary moves as delaying tactics. Cloture was invoked on August 18, 63–25, and on 

August 19, the Senate passed the bill to exclude portions of 

the public lands in Alaska from certain types of development. 

H.R. 39 was the pending Senate business for 12 days.

1980—A routine House-passed ship tonnage bill, H.R.1197, became 

controversial in the Senate after Senators of some coal-producing states, led by Majority Leader Byrd and Senators Ford 

and Warner, tried to amend it to include strip mining provisions. Their amendment sought to exempt states from having to comply with the regulations written to implement the 

Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act, which they said 

were arbitrary and infl exible. When the measure was placed 

before the Senate on August 19, Senators Melcher and Metzenbaum were prepared to introduce over 200 amendments 

as delaying tactics. However, a substitute version of the ton67

nage bill that incorporated the strip mining amendments was 

offered, along with a series of fi rst and second degree amendments. These actions prevented other amendments from being considered until the pending second degree amendments 

were acted upon. Senator Byrd continued to offer amendments, but also fi led a cloture motion on August 19. Cloture 

was invoked on August 21, 61–32. Senators Metzenbaum and 

Melcher tried to delay the proceedings after cloture had been 

invoked, but fi nally entered into a time agreement. H.R. 1197 

passed by a voice vote on August 22, after having been the 

pending Senate business for fi ve days.

1980—As the 96th Congress neared adjournment, the Senate faced 

two simultaneous fi libusters. The fi rst was on H.R. 5200, the 

Fair Housing Amendments to the Civil Rights Act of 1968. 

When Majority Leader Byrd moved to bring the measure up 

for Senate consideration, opponents immediately launched a 

fi libuster. This legislation, considered by some to be the most 

signifi cant civil rights legislation since the Voting Rights Act 

of 1965, sought to enhance the enforcement powers of the 

1968 law that forbade housing discrimination. The major dispute in the Senate was over procedures for enforcing prohibitions against discrimination in the sale or rental of housing. 

Majority Leader Byrd fi led two cloture motions in an attempt 

to cut off debate on the motion to proceed to the consideration 

of H.R. 5200. The fi rst failed, 51–39, on December 3. The following day the Senate voted 62–32 for cloture, which limited 

debate to 100 hours on the motion to proceed. With the pressure of an impending adjournment, the opponents vowed to 

begin another fi libuster against the measure itself. On December 5, Majority Leader Byrd, having obtained unanimous 

consent for this purpose, fi led a cloture motion toward ending 

debate on H.R. 5200 and offered his proposal to take a vote on 

December 9 on the motion to bring up H.R. 5200. If the motion to take up H.R. 5200 passed, the Senate would vote immediately to invoke cloture on the bill itself. If cloture failed, 

however, the bill would be withdrawn. On December 9, the 

Senate voted to proceed to consideration of the measure, but, 

by a vote of 54–43, failed to close debate on the measure, thus 

ending its chances for passage in the 96th Congress. The bill 

was before the Senate for six days.

1980—The last fi libuster of the 96th Congress ended on December 9, 

the same day the Senate defeated the motion to end debate on 

the Fair Housing Amendments. After defeating that earlier cloture motion, the Senate voted 68–28 to close further debate on 

the nomination of Stephen Breyer of Massachusetts to be a U.S. 

Circuit Judge for the First Circuit. The nomination had come to 

the Senate fl oor on November 25, but some Senators had objected that it had not been properly reported by the Judiciary Committee. The nomination was sent back to the Committee, which 

then approved it, 12–0. The nomination was opposed by Senators Morgan and Humphrey, who conducted a fi libuster. Stephen 

Breyer was confi rmed on December 9, after his nomination had 

been the Senate’s pending business for four days.
68

1981–1982—The fi rst extended debate of the 97th Congress continued intermittently from June 16 into the second session. As 

soon as the Senate took up the Justice Department Authorization bill, S. 951, an amendment was offered by Senator 

Helms to restrict school busing, to which Senator Johnston 

offered an expanded substitute for the Helms amendment on 

June 22. On July 8, a cloture motion was fi led on the bill, 

which might have rendered the pending amendments out of 

order as nongermane; this cloture motion was defeated, 38–

48, on July 10. Through September 10, three cloture motions 

on the Johnston substitute were defeated, the second time by 

59–37 with one Senator withholding his vote for cloture because of a live pair. On September 16, a fourth cloture motion 

on the substitute was agreed to, 61–36, the amendment was 

agreed to, 60–39, and a cloture motion was fi led on the Helms 

amendment, as amended. On December 10, cloture was invoked on this amendment, 64–35, and a motion to extend the 

time for post-cloture debate to 124 hours was tabled. On February 4, 1982, the Helms amendment was agreed to, 58–38, 

and a cloture motion was fi led on the bill. On February 9, a 

second such motion was fi led, but rendered moot by the Senate’s agreement to the fi rst motion, 61–33. On February 23, 

an amendment to the bill in the nature of a substitute and a 

perfecting amendment to the bill, both repeating the text of S. 

951, as amended, were offered, in order to restrict the ability 

of the measure’s opponents to call up further amendments. 

During the post-cloture period, numerous motions, appeals, 

and amendments still were considered, tabled, or ruled nongermane or dilatory. On March 2, pursuant to a unanimous 

consent agreement under which other pending amendments 

were withdrawn, the perfecting amendment was agreed to by 

voice vote, and the bill was passed, 57–37. In all, the Senate 

had considered, or acted with respect to, S. 951 on 24 days. 

The measure then went to the House of Representatives, 

where it was not reported from committee.

1981—The issue of voluntary school prayer prevented Senate passage of fi scal 1982 appropriations for the State, Justice, and 

Commerce Departments. During debate on the appropriations 

measure, H.R. 4169, in mid-November, Senate action was 

slowed by debate on an Appropriations Committee amendment to delete House language to prevent the Justice Department from spending money to block implementation of voluntary school prayer programs. Several votes were taken on the 

prayer issue before a vote on a cloture motion fi led by Senator 

Helms. That motion failed, 59–35 on December 11, and the 

bill was laid aside. Funding for the agencies was included in a 

continuing resolution when it became clear in November that 

the appropriation bill was in jeopardy. This measure was the 

pending Senate business for eight days.

1982—A last-minute compromise ended twelve days of Senate debate on a measure providing for television and radio broadcasting of Senate fl oor proceedings. On April 21, the Senate 

amended and agreed to S. Res. 20, including an amendment 

requiring the Rules and Administration Committee to report 
69

a second resolution proposing a complete plan for broadcasting Senate debates. Earlier, the Senate had defeated a cloture 

motion fi led by Majority Leader Baker to limit debate on the 

resolution, 47–51. No votes were taken on two other cloture 

motions fi led by Senator Baker. The fi nal vote on S. Res. 20 as 

amended was 95–1. The Senate had considered S. Res. 20 off 

and on since February.

1982—Efforts to revise the Federal criminal code in the 97th Congress were unsuccessful when the Senate failed to limit debate on a motion to consider the bill (S. 1630), which was 

then withdrawn from consideration. The vote against cloture, 

45–46, occurred on April 27. The motion to proceed to consideration was withdrawn although it had been pending before the Senate for only two days. The Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and the bill’s chief sponsor, Senator 

Thurmond, withdrew the motion when no agreement could be 

reached to limit the amendments to be proposed.

1982—An emergency housing stimulus plan jeopardized and delayed Senate passage of an urgent supplemental appropriations measure (H.R. 5922) in late May. The measure was 

pending before the Senate for three days, with most of the 

time devoted to working out an agreement over the housing 

program. Under the agreement reached, a motion fi led by 

Majority Leader Baker to limit debate on the measure was 

agreed to 95–2 on May 27. Further, by a vote of 63–27, the 

Senate agreed to a motion by Senator Lugar to suspend Rule 

XV and portions of Rules XVI and XXII, thus permitting consideration of the housing amendment. That amendment increased the Appropriations Committee recommendation for 

the housing program from $1 billion to $5.1 billion. The Senate then agreed to add the new housing program, 69–23, and 

H.R. 5922 subsequently passed the Senate on May 27.

1982—In June, a group of Senators led by Senator Helms conducted 

a six-day fi libuster on a motion to proceed to consideration of 

a measure (S. 1992) extending the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

The Senate began debate on the motion on June 9, 1982; on 

the fourth day of debate, cloture was invoked on the motion, 

86–8. However, Senator Helms and other Senators continued 

to delay action. The fi libuster was fi nally broken after the majority leadership announced that the Senate would take up 

no other business until the voting rights bill was completed, 

thus depleting as swiftly as possible the 100 hours for postcloture debate allowed by the rule, and forcing the fi libuster 

leaders to use up the one hour periods that the rule allots to 

each Senator. Senator Helms was also persuaded to give up 

the fi libuster by promises from the leadership that issues of 

interest to him such as abortion and school prayer would be 

taken up at a later date. Accordingly, on June 17, the Senate 

voted 97–0 to begin consideration of the measure. Afterwards, 

the Senate considered some 22 amendments in less than 24 

hours, and passed S. 1992 on June 18. This measure was 

pending before the Senate for seven days.

1982—The Senate leadership invited amendments to H.J. Res. 520, 

setting the level of the temporary national debt limit, as a 
70

means of providing for fl oor action on school prayer and abortion. On August 16, when the Senate took up the measure 

with a committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, 

since proponents of Senate action on these questions had not 

yet settled on language to propose, they offered an amendment 

to add the words “Title II” to the committee substitute. At 

the beginning of consideration on August 18, Senator Helms 

gained the fl oor, modifi ed his amendment to incorporate the 

“Voluntary School Prayer Act of 1982,” and then offered another amendment, to prohibit abortions, as an amendment to 

his own fi rst degree amendment. When opponents recovered 

the fl oor, they offered language maintaining court jurisdiction 

on both questions as fi rst and second degree amendments to 

the original text of the resolution, thus precluding the offering of further amendments. Debate continued until on August 

20, the last day before the recess, a cloture motion was fi led 

on the Helms abortion amendment. On September 9, this motion was defeated, as were two similar subsequent motions, 

the vote most favorable to cloture being 50–44. On September 

15, the abortion amendment was tabled, making a fourth motion moot. Beginning on September 16, fi ve cloture motions 

(one later withdrawn) were fi led on the Helms school prayer 

amendment. The most favorable vote on any of these motions 

was 54–46; a motion to table this amendment failed, 47–53. 

On September 23, a motion was tabled, 51–48, that H.J. Res. 

520 be recommitted and reported back with the school prayer 

provisions incorporated. A leadership motion that it be recommitted and reported back without amendments then was 

agreed to, 79–16. The measure then passed, after 17 days of 

debate, by 50–41; it became P.L. 97–270.

1982—After two unsuccessful attempts to invoke cloture, a measure 

governing the contribution of damages in antitrust price-fi xing suits (S. 995) was removed from consideration late in the 

97th Congress. Both of the votes to invoke cloture occurred on 

December 2, on motions fi led by Majority Whip Stevens. The 

fi rst vote of 38–52 was on a Judiciary Committee amendment 

and the second vote of 44–51 was on the bill itself. After the 

votes, Senator Thurmond, Chairman of the Senate Judiciary 

Committee and chief sponsor of the legislation, said that he 

could not in good conscience insist that the Senate continue 

working on the measure when it seemed clear that opponents 

had the votes to continue the fi libuster. This measure was the 

pending business for three days.

1982—Attempts to establish a radio station (Radio Marti) to broadcast to Cuba failed in the latter part of the 97th Congress. 

Opponents led by Senator Zorinsky kept the measure from 

reaching the fl oor for consideration by conducting a fi libuster 

off and on for fi ve days on a motion to waive the requirements 

of the Congressional Budget Act in order to permit consideration of the Radio Marti measure (H.R. 5427). Senator Zorinsky stated that he objected to consideration of the budget 

waiver because it was voted on at a Foreign Relations Committee meeting that had not been approved by the Senate 

even though it was held more than two hours after the Sen71

ate went into session and thus violated Senate Rules. No attempts were made to invoke cloture during the time the Senate considered the motion to waive the Budget Act.

1982—The last cloture situation of the 97th Congress involved the 

Surface Transportation Assistance Act (H.R. 6211), which included a fi ve-cent rise in the tax on gasoline. When a motion to consider the bill was made on December 10, a cloture 

motion was fi led immediately; on December 13, both motions 

were agreed to. The next day, a cloture motion was fi led on 

an amendment in the nature of a substitute, which included 

aspects of the proposal reported from other committees, and 

one on the bill itself. Both were rejected (48–50 and 5–93), in 

part to protect potentially nongermane amendments several 

Senators wished to see offered. On December 16, the Senate 

laid the bill aside for marathon weekend sessions on the fi scal 1983 omnibus continuing resolution. Returning to the bill 

on December 20, the Senate agreed to a motion to reconsider 

the vote on invoking cloture on the substitute, and invoked 

cloture, 87–8. It then adjourned for one minute to make third 

reading in order, and passed the bill, 56–34. On the same 

day, the Senate proceeded to consider the conference report, 

on which a cloture motion was fi led; on December 23, cloture 

was invoked, 81–5 and the conference report was then agreed 

to, 54–33. The bill became P.L. 97–424; the Senate had considered it for nine days.

1983—The fi rst cloture votes of the 98th Congress involved the 

emergency job and recession relief bill (H.R. 1718). Senator 

Kasten offered an amendment repealing tax withholding on 

dividend and interest income, rather than accepting Majority Leader Baker’s offer of a later “free standing” vote on this 

proposal. The Chairman of the reporting committee, Senator 

Robert Dole, led opposition to the amendment. After three 

days’ debate, Senators Dole and Kasten both sought recognition to offer cloture petitions. Senator Dole was recognized 

fi rst, insuring that the fi rst cloture vote would come on the 

bill. If his cloture motion had succeeded, the Kasten amendment might have fallen as nongermane. However, this motion was defeated, 50–48. Next, Senator Kasten’s motion for 

cloture on his amendment came to a vote. The leadership opposed this motion actively, and the motion lost by only one 

vote, 59–39. The Senate then temporarily laid the bill aside. 

Subsequently, Senator Baker fi led a second cloture petition on 

the bill. Senator Kasten and the leadership later agreed that 

the amendment would be offered instead to a trade bill, which 

was pending on the calendar, immediately after the upcoming 

Easter recess. H.R. 1718 then passed the Senate on March 17, 

after having been the pending business for seven days.

1983—For the second time in a month, the issue of repeal of tax 

withholding on interest and dividend income was before the 

Senate. As previously arranged, Senator Kasten offered his 

repeal proposal as an amendment to S. 144, the International 

Trade and Investment Act. Subsequently, he fi led two cloture 

petitions on the amendment. When the time for the fi rst cloture vote arrived, the leadership moved to adjourn the Senate 
72

instead, but the motion failed, and proponents and opponents 

began to work out a compromise. Subsequently, Senator Kasten asked his supporters to vote against cloture, to allow him 

to offer such a compromise later as an amendment. Accordingly, two cloture votes, on April 19 and 20, failed by votes of 

34–53 and 39–59 respectively. A compromise plan was later 

offered by Senator Dole, Chair of the Committee, in the form 

of a motion to recommit the bill with instructions that it be 

reported back with the compromise included. However, this 

agreement among the Republicans ran into diffi culty because 

Senator Long, ranking minority member of the Committee, 

called for a vote on outright repeal. He moved to amend the 

instructions to provide that the bill be reported back with 

straight repeal included. This amendment, however, was tabled. Accordingly, on April 21, the motion to recommit passed 

the Senate, and the bill with the compromise amendment was 

passed the same day. Under the compromise, withholding 

would be delayed until July 1, 1987, and would be implemented only if the General Accounting Offi ce found that interest 

and dividend tax cheating had not been diminished substantially and only if both Houses of Congress agreed with the 

GAO’s fi ndings. S. 144 was the pending business for six days.

1983—The Senate debated S. 675, the defense authorization bill, for 

13 days, more than a week of which focused on attempts to 

remove from the bill funds for production of the MX missile. 

Proponents of the missile were at fi rst reluctant to move for 

cloture, because opponents were said to have prepared over 

150 amendments for possible use in a “post-cloture fi libuster.” However, the leadership ultimately fi led six cloture motions on the bill or the committee substitute, fearing that the 

House, which was debating its own defense authorization bill, 

might reject MX funding, and thereby strengthen the determination of the Senate MX opponents. On July 21, after the 

House had voted to authorize the funds, the Senate failed to 

invoke cloture on the bill, 55–41, and the cloture vote on the 

committee substitute was vitiated. At this point, both sides 

agreed to a time certain for a vote on the amendment to strike 

MX funds from the bill, and the other cloture petitions were 

vitiated. The following week, the amendment was defeated, 

41–58, and the bill passed, 83–15.

1983—In late July, opponents of a bill (S. 602) to provide Federal 

funding for radio broadcasts to Cuba (“Radio Marti”) began 

extended debate in opposition to a motion to proceed to consider the measure. After two days of debate, cloture was invoked on the motion to proceed, but the motion to proceed 

itself was agreed to only after the August recess. The bill then 

passed on the same day, having been the pending business for 

fi ve days.

1983—When the Senate received H.R. 3706, creating a Federal holiday for Martin Luther King, Jr.’s, birthday, the measure was 

not referred to committee, but placed on the calendar. On October 3, after debate began on a motion to proceed to consider 

the measure, a cloture petition on the motion was fi led. Two 

days later, however, the cloture motion was withdrawn as 
73

part of an agreement that the measure would be considered 

after the Columbus Day recess, that a motion would then be 

made to commit the bill, and that if this motion failed, a fi nal 

vote would occur the following day. The motion to commit subsequently failed, and the bill passed, 78–22, on October 19.

1983—On November 3, the Senate invoked cloture (86–7) on a motion, offered November 1, to proceed to consider a bill (S. 

1715) to remove controls on natural gas prices. When the 

Senate began consideration of the measure, Senator McClure, 

the Committee Chairman, offered an amendment, to which 

it was expected that Senator Johnston, the ranking minority 

member, would offer a second-degree amendment, giving the 

bill’s supporters initial control of the debate. However, Senator Metzenbaum, an opponent of the bill, obtained recognition 

instead, and offered his own second-degree amendment. Although several Senators protested that Senate tradition gives 

fl oor managers preference in recognition, the Chair stated 

that he had recognized the Senator who had fi rst addressed 

him, as required by Senate Rules. As adjournment of the session approached, the Senate returned the measure, which had 

been the pending business for fi ve days, to the calendar.

1984—Cloture was invoked for the fi rst time in this year on a measure to reinstate the death penalty for certain Federal crimes, 

ranging from treason to attempted or actual assassination of 

the President. The 65–26 vote to end the fi ve-day fi libuster 

against S. 1765 came during two weeks of Senate work on 

anti-crime legislation promoted by the Administration. The 

cloture vote took place on February 9, and the Senate passed 

the bill on February 22, after the Lincoln-Washington Birthday recess.

1984—On March 2 the Senate began a long-promised debate on 

school prayer, considering a proposed constitutional amendment allowing prayer in public schools. During the 11 days of 

debate, several proposed prayer amendments were discussed 

in the Senate, but voting ultimately occurred on S.J. Res. 73, 

on March 20. The measure failed to receive the required twothirds majority (56–44). No cloture motions were fi led during 

this debate.

1984—A cloture petition was fi led soon after Senator Metzenbaum 

began extended debate in opposition to a motion that the Senate concur in House amendments to S. 268, to preserve existing low rates for power from the Hoover Dam. The cloture 

vote took place on July 30. When 60 Senators had not voted 

for cloture by the time the minimum 15-minute voting period 

had elapsed, Senator Metzenbaum called for the regular order, which would have been the announcement of the result. 

However, in order to enable the leadership to assemble the 

minimum 60 votes needed to invoke cloture, several Senators 

repeatedly switched their votes back and forth until 60 Senators had voted in the affi rmative. Senator Metzenbaum then 

decided not to pursue his opposition, although he had been 

prepared to launch a post-cloture fi libuster. The Senate subsequently agreed to the motion to concur after debating the 

issue for four days.
74

1984—The Senate approved the nomination of J. Harvie Wilkinson 

to a Federal Appeals Court seat on August 9, after it had been 

the pending business for fi ve days and had been stalled in 

the Senate for some eight months. The Senate fi rst took up 

the nomination on May 23 and 24. Although it was not taken 

up again until July 30, it had been the subject of persistent 

controversy. On July 31, the Senate failed, 57–39, to agree 

to a motion for cloture fi led by Majority Leader Baker. After 

he fi led another motion, scheduled for an August 2 vote, the 

Senate agreed to a one-week postponement of the cloture vote 

while the Judiciary Committee held a rare additional hearing 

on the nomination. The agreement also called for an immediate fi nal vote on the nomination should cloture be invoked. 

Subsequently, on August 9, cloture was invoked, 65–32, and 

the nominee was confi rmed.

1984—An agriculture appropriations bill (H.R. 5743) became the 

subject of extended debate when Senator Chiles, ranking minority member of the Budget Committee, opposed action on 

the measure while no First Budget Resolution for fi scal year 

1985 had been adopted. The Budget Resolution had been held 

up by a dispute on defense spending levels. As routinely done, 

the Senate had allowed the appropriations measure to reach 

the fl oor by agreeing to a waiver of the Budget Act. Two days 

after the debate began, Majority Leader Baker fi led a cloture 

petition. The Senate defeated this fi rst motion, 54–31, but 

later agreed to a second cloture motion, 68–30, and passed 

the bill the same day. H.R. 5743 was the pending business for 

seven days.

1984—On September 13, the Senate passed a banking deregulation 

measure (S. 2851) after it had been the pending business for 

six days. The Senate voted cloture on the motion to proceed to 

consider the bill, 89–3, then agreed to consider the bill, 95–2. 

Proponents responded to indications that extended debate 

would continue by fi ling a cloture petition on the bill, and the 

Senate agreed to cloture, 92–6. The bill was then passed without experiencing further delays.

1984—The long-awaited question of whether the Senate would allow television and radio coverage of its proceedings abruptly 

ended near the conclusion of the 98th Congress when the Senate voted decisively not to end a fi libuster against the proposal. S. Res. 66 was sponsored by retiring Majority Leader 

Baker, a persistent advocate of live coverage of Senate activity. On September 13, the Senate took up a motion to proceed 

to consideration of the measure. Opponents led by Senators 

Long and Ford, began a fi libuster arguing that broadcasting 

would alter the traditional manner in which Senate debate 

takes place. Senator Baker fi led a cloture petition on the motion to proceed, and cloture was invoked on September 18, 

73–26. Once the Senate took up the proposal, however, it indicated that it was not ready to adopt it when a petition for cloture on the resolution, fi led by Senator Baker, was rejected on 

September 21, 37–44. After the defeat of that motion, Senator 

Baker withdrew his proposal for the session, saying “This is 
75

an idea whose time has not come.” S. Res. 66 was the pending 

business for four days.

1984—During the closing days of the 98th Congress, a bill (S. 2527) 

to release highway funds to states was the subject of extended 

debate. After cloture was invoked on the motion to proceed to 

consider the measure, 70–12, opponents indicated that they 

would continue to press their objections, and other Senators 

engaged in extended debate against a proposed amendment 

adding a civil rights measure to the bill. A cloture petition 

was fi led on the bill, but vitiated when it became necessary 

for the Senate to turn to other business. Although S. 2527, 

which had been the pending business for three days, was not 

brought up again, the Senate later passed another bill.

1984—The last cloture petitions of the 98th Congress were fi led on 

a series of possibly nongermane amendments to the fi scal 

1985 continuing resolution, H.J. Res. 648. The situation led 

several Senators to express fears that the Senate would, by 

reversing rulings from the Chair under cloture that amendments were not germane, establish a precedent that would 

in effect permit “majority cloture.” When the measure was 

called up on September 27, a substitute for the fi rst committee amendment, and an amendment to the substitute, were 

offered. These were intended to counteract those portions of 

the Supreme Court’s ruling in Grove City College v. Bell, earlier in 1984, that limited the application to colleges of law the 

sex discrimination provisions of Title X. A cloture petition was 

fi led on each amendment. When the defense of germaneness 

was raised against a point of order that the substitute would 

constitute legislation on an appropriation bill, the Senate held 

the substitute germane, and so in order, by 51–49. Amendments were then offered to the substitute, adding language 

to establish a tax credit for private school tuition; to the text 

proposed to be stricken by the committee amendment, relaxing fi rearms controls; and to the fi rearms amendment, adding language restricting courts’ authority to use school busing 

for integration. A cloture petition was fi led on the committee 

amendment, and second petitions were fi led on each amendment already the subject of such a motion. On September 29, 

the Senate invoked cloture on the Grove City substitute, 92–4. 

With the Senate proceeding under cloture, the school busing 

amendment was ruled nongermane, and an appeal from this 

ruling was tabled. However, when the gun control amendment 

was also ruled nongermane, the Senate rejected a motion to 

table an appeal. Then, on October 1, the Senate voted, 60–37, 

to reconsider tabling the fi rst appeal as well, and on reconsideration, the tabling motion was defeated, 41–56. After a day 

of negotiation, the Grove City amendment was tabled, 53–45, 

the gun control amendment was tabled by voice vote, and the 

cloture petitions on the committee amendment were vitiated 

by unanimous consent. The measure was then passed on October 4.

1985—Nomination of Edwin Meese III to be Attorney General. 

Farm-state Senators forestalled a vote on the nomination until a credit package for fi nancially beleaguered farmers was 
76

worked out. Once these negotiations were concluded, the Senate approved the nomination, 63–31, during a rare Saturday 

session. February 19–23 (four days).

1985—S. 995, H.R. 1460, sanctions against South Africa’s apartheid 

regime. Opponents of sanctions delayed a vote on a motion to 

consider S. 995 from July 8 until after cloture was invoked 

on July 10, but on July 11 the Senate approved the motion 

by voice vote, dealt with numerous amendments, and passed 

H.R. 1460, the House companion bill, 80–12. The Senate accepted a proposal to authorize a U.S. gold coin to compete 

with Krugerrands, but supporters of sanctions helped secure 

rejection of several other amendments (including one to extend the sanctions to communist nations) by agreeing to withhold their proposal to ban imports of Krugerrands. Threats 

of a fi libuster led the Senate to put off consideration of the 

conference report on H.R. 1460 until after the August recess, 

by which time President Reagan had imposed his own set of 

sanctions by executive order. After supporters of the Reagan 

sanctions twice defeated cloture on the conference report, the 

leadership withdrew the matter from consideration. In the 

course of proceedings, however, the minority leader took the 

unusual step of offering another motion to proceed to the conference report and fi ling cloture on it, even though the motion 

was non-debatable, in order to ensure a vote. The subsequent 

rejection of cloture on this motion to consider was the Senate’s last action on the matter. July 8–11, August 1, September 9–12 (eight days).

1985—S. 43, giving the President for two years a form of line item 

veto authority over appropriations bills. The measure was reported unfavorably from committee. After the Senate debated 

a motion to consider for a week, rejecting in the process three 

cloture motions, the last and most nearly successful of which 

received 58 votes, the leadership withdrew the motion to consider. July 16–24 (seven days).

1985—H.J. Res. 372, P.L. 99–177, to raise the federal debt limit. 

When the Senate took up the measure, Majority Leader Dole 

immediately offered as an amendment a version of a proposal 

by Senators Gramm, Rudman, and Hollings for reducing deficits over the following several years. Senate leaders hoped 

to secure quick action on this proposal by postponing action 

on the debt limit until after its consideration. When Minority 

Leader Byrd and several other Senators prevented an immediate vote on the amendment, urging that they needed more 

time to consider it, Senator Dole held the Senate in session on 

Saturday, October 6, and Sunday, October 7 (only the eleventh 

Sunday session in Senate history). The Senate rejected cloture 

on the amendment by 57–38 on October 6 and, on reconsideration, by 53–39 on October 9. On that day, however, after the 

Treasury resorted to emergency maneuvers to provide cash 

to run the government, the Senate adopted the amendment, 

passing the joint resolution the next day. During its consideration, six cloture petitions were fi led on other amendments, 

but none was voted on. The measure remained in conference 

until December before being enacted with a different version 
77

of the defi cit reduction plan; meanwhile, Congress enacted a 

temporary debt limit increase in a separate measure. October 

3–15, November 1–7, December 11 (15 days).

1985—S. 1714, H.R. 2100, P.L. 99–198, agriculture aid. Although 

the Senate considered numerous amendments, only a few involved attempts to delay the measure. On October 29, a group 

of Midwestern Senators delayed action on an amendment 

weakening requirements to ship agricultural exports on U.S.-

fl ag vessels by offering a series of amendments protecting 

Great Lakes shipping interests, ultimately obtaining acceptance of a compromise proposal on the following day. Beginning on November 22, Senators favoring a four-year freeze on 

agricultural target prices objected to the Senate’s taking up 

the House companion measure, thereby delaying, until early 

on November 23, a fi nal vote on the Senate version, which 

provided only a one-year freeze. Cloture was moved on the 

Senate version, but an agreement was then reached to include 

a compromise provision in the Senate version of the House 

companion. October 25–November 1, November 18–23, December 18 (13 days).

1986—S. 638, sale of Conrail. Opponents, who believed S. 638 would 

give the Federal government too low a price for selling its 85 

percent share of Conrail to Norfolk Southern Corp., debated 

the motion to proceed to consider the bill during three days. 

Nevertheless, the Senate adopted the motion on January 23 

after invoking cloture thereon by 90–7. Debate on the measure itself continued for six days, but on January 30, the Senate invoked cloture on a substitute amendment by 70–27, and 

on February 4 it adopted the substitute and passed the bill. 

(The House later returned S. 638 to the Senate because it contained revenue provisions. An alternate plan, to sell Conrail 

largely through a public stock offering, was ultimately enacted as part of H.R. 5300, the 1986 reconciliation bill.) January 

21–February 4 (eight days).

1986 —Nomination of Sidney A. Fitzwater to be U.S. District Judge. 

Majority Leader Dole moved cloture on March 14, the second 

day of debate. On March 18, the Senate invoked cloture, 64–

33, then voted 57–42 to confi rm the nominee. March 11–18 

(three days).

1986—S. 1017, to transfer management of National and Dulles Airports to a regional authority. Opponents sought to increase 

the asking price of the transaction. The Senate rejected cloture on the motion to consider on March 21, but invoked cloture on a third attempt (after a second cloture motion was 

withdrawn) by 66–32 on March 25, the sixth day of debate. 

The Senate adopted the motion to consider the next day, took 

up the bill on April 9, and considered many amendments. Cloture was sought both on the bill itself and on the committee 

substitute, but the Senate approved both substitute and bill 

without either motion reaching a vote. The House did not act 

on the measure. March 19–April 11 (nine days).

1986—S. 2638, P.L. 99–661, defense authorization. Consideration 

began on August 1, the Senate rejected cloture on August 6, 

and a second cloture motion was vitiated on August 7. Al78

though the Senate disposed of numerous amendments, much 

of the debate centered on two nongermane amendments, one 

for sanctions against apartheid in South Africa and another to 

aid the Nicaraguan “Contra” rebels and to provide economic 

aid in Central America. On August 8, however, a cloture motion fi led on each of these amendments fell pursuant to an 

agreement to withdraw both of them, and the Senate then 

passed the bill the next day. August 1–9, October 15 (eight 

days).

1986—H.R. 5052, military construction appropriations. An unusual 

consent agreement of August 8 provided for a separate vote 

on Titles II and III of the bill, which proposed aid to the Nicaraguan “Contras” and to Central America, if cloture was invoked on them. Up to two cloture votes each were to occur on 

these provisions, and also on a separate measure (S. 2701) for 

sanctions against the South African apartheid regime; cloture 

would be considered invoked on neither unless the Senate invoked cloture on both. On August 13, the Senate fi rst rejected 

cloture on Titles II and III, 59–40, then invoked it on S. 2701, 

89–11. The second cloture vote on Titles II and III succeeded, 

62–37, after which the Senate adopted Titles II and III by 53–

47 and passed H.R. 5052. (Military construction funds were 

ultimately provided in H.J. Res. 738, continuing appropriations. On August 15, the Senate passed H.R. 4868, the House 

companion bill for S. 2701, and it ultimately became P.L. 99–

440 over the President’s veto.) August 9–13 (four days).

1986—Nomination of Associate Justice William H. Rehnquist to be 

Chief Justice. On several days, Senators addressed the nomination when it was not yet formally before the Senate, and 

Majority Leader Dole did not move cloture until September 

15, the third day of formal debate. After briefl y considering 

the nomination on September 16, the Senate on September 

17 invoked cloture by 68–31, and later that evening confi rmed 

Justice Rehnquist, 65–33. September 11–17 (fi ve days).

1986—H.R. 5484, P.L. 99–570, drug abuse. The Senate sent to the 

House its initial version of the measure, a bipartisan leadership substitute for the House bill, in the early hours of September 28, after an amendment to add a death penalty provision similar to that in the House bill was withdrawn to avoid 

a threatened fi libuster. On October 10, when the Senate took 

up a House amendment reinstating the provision, Minority 

Leader Dole moved for cloture on the measure in response 

to indications from about 25 Senators from both parties that 

they would continue to resist its retention. On October 15, 

however, after the Senate rejected cloture, 58–38, supporters 

of the bill accepted a version providing instead for life imprisonment without parole, which passed by voice vote. Ultimately, the Senate concurred in a further House amendment that 

continued to omit the death penalty, and declined to take up 

H. Con. Res. 415, to restore the provision. September 26–30, 

October 10–17 (seven days).

1987—H.J. Res. 175, moratorium on aid to the Nicaraguan “Contras.” Immediately after the defeat of S.J. Res. 81, on the 

same subject, 48–52, on March 18, Majority Leader Byrd 
79

moved to consider the House version. Cloture was moved 

three times during consideration of this motion, but after 

none of these motions received more than 54 votes in favor, 

the Senate agreed by voice vote to postpone the matter indefi -

nitely. March 18–25 (six days).

1987—H.R. 558, P.L. 100–77, assistance to the homeless. When the 

Senate took up the House bill, a leadership substitute was 

offered, synthesizing proposals from pertinent Senate committees and bipartisan Senate leadership. Senator Gordon Humphrey offered amendments to reverse a congressional pay 

raise, to which Majority Leader Byrd offered other amendments (fi lling the amendment tree) that, if adopted, would 

have precluded a vote on the reversal itself. Later, Senator 

Byrd permitted a vote on one of his amendments, which enabled Senator Lowell Weicker to offer an amendment banning 

honoraria for Senators; supporters of the pay raise hoped 

adding this provision would weaken support for reversing the 

raise. Senator Byrd then moved cloture on the substitute; if 

cloture was invoked, the pay raise amendments would fall, 

being nongermane. Senator Humphrey responded by permitting unanimous consent to set the amendment tree aside for 

consideration only of germane amendments, thus preserving 

a reason for proponents of nongermane amendments to vote 

against cloture. When it became clear, however, that even 

with the approach of a scheduled recess, opponents of the pay 

raise amendments would retain enough votes to invoke cloture on the substitute, Senator Humphrey permitted an early 

vote on cloture. Cloture was invoked, 68–29, the pay raise 

amendments fell, and the Senate approved the substitute and 

the bill (an additional cloture motion on each fell). April 8–9, 

May 14, June 27 (four days).

1987—Nomination of Melissa Wells to be Ambassador to Mozambique. Senator Helms opposed the nomination in order to seek 

change in U.S. foreign policy toward the nation. The Senate 

voted to consider the nomination, 56–28, on May 1, and took 

it up again on July 24. The Senate gave unanimous consent 

on August 6 that a cloture motion be fi led even though the 

nomination was not pending, and on August 7 that the cloture vote occur after the August recess. On September 9, during debate before the cloture vote, Senator Helms offered an 

amendment to the Executive Journal and appealed a ruling 

that the action was out of order. The Senate then invoked cloture on the nomination, 65–24, upheld the ruling of the chair, 

59–28, and confi rmed the nomination, 64–24. May 5, July 28, 

August 6–7, September 9 (fi ve days).

1987—S. 1174, H.R. 1748, P.L. 100–180, defense authorization. Opponents of provisions in the bill restricting the strategic defense initiative (SDI) extended debate on a May 13 motion to 

consider while three cloture motions were defeated (the last 

by 59–39 on May 20). A fourth was then withdrawn, and the 

bill was put off until opponents became willing to allow consideration. On September 10, the motion to consider was renewed and a fi fth cloture petition was fi led as a precaution, 

but the Senate approved the motion to consider, 79–4, with 
80

support from Senators backing SDI. Consideration of numerous amendments continued for the rest of September, during 

which the Senate rejected an attempt to strike out the restrictions on SDI. Cloture was moved only on an amendment 

to limit the time for U.S. escort of Kuwaiti oil tankers, and 

when cloture was rejected, 54–45, the amendment was withdrawn. Thereafter, cloture was also fi led on the bill, but the 

Senate passed it before the cloture vote could occur, and the 

measure went on to enactment under the House bill number. 

May 13–20, September 10–October 2, October 16, November 

19 (23 days).

1987—S.J. Res. 194 would have invoked the timetable of the War 

Powers Act for Congress to vote on U.S. military actions in 

the Persian Gulf, especially on U.S. escorts for Kuwaiti oil 

tankers. A bipartisan substitute required that the President 

report on U.S. policy in the Gulf, and that Congress then 

vote on the policy under a procedure precluding fi libusters, 

without reference to the requirements of the War Powers Act. 

Supporters of the initial resolution moved for cloture on the 

substitute, but Senators supporting the President successfully 

opposed it. Even after cloture was invoked on the substitute 

(67–28), the Senate fi rst rejected it, then reconsidered it and 

adopted several amendments defending the President’s position, and only thereafter approved it. The House did not act 

on the Senate-passed measure. October 9–21 (four days).

1987—H.R. 2700, energy-water appropriations. Nevada Senators 

and their allies opposed provisions added in a Senate committee that were designed to enable construction of a nuclear waste repository in that state. The Senate fi rst tabled an 

amendment to strike the provisions, then, after four days 

considering an amendment affi rming the provisions, invoked 

cloture on it, 87–0. Opponents of the repository, however, 

then continued to debate the amendment under cloture, after 

which it was withdrawn, pursuant to a unanimous consent 

agreement that also permitted opponents to offer specifi ed 

amendments against the repository (none of which the Senate 

subsequently adopted). Ultimately, provision for the nuclear 

waste repository was enacted in the 1987 reconciliation bill, 

and energy-water funding was included in an omnibus appropriations bill. November 4–18, December 9 (nine days).

1987–1988—S. 2, to provide public funding for Senate candidates 

who accepted spending limits, became the fi rst measure on 

which eight cloture votes occurred. The Senate began debate 

on June 3, 1987; two days later, Majority Leader Byrd fi rst 

moved cloture on the committee substitute. By June 19 the 

Senate had rejected cloture on the substitute fi ve times, never 

with more than 52 votes in favor. During this period and during renewed consideration in August, the Senate considered 

few amendments. The Senate again returned to the bill on 

September 9, simultaneous with consideration of the defense 

authorization bill under a two-track arrangement, and nongermane amendments dealing with the Nicaraguan “Contras” 

and Latin American policy were offered. Cloture again failed 

on September 10, 53–42, and September 15, 51–44. A fi nal at81

tempt began on February 17, 1988, when a revised proposal 

was offered as a substitute through instructions in a motion 

to recommit. Beginning on February 23, the leadership proceeded to all-night sessions for its consideration. When opponents responded by making repeated calls for a quorum and 

then denying the Senate a quorum by not responding, Senator 

Byrd secured Senate acceptance of an order for the arrest of 

absent Senators. In pursuance of this order, Capitol Police offi cers, under direction of the Sergeant at Arms, brought Senator Bob Packwood bodily to the fl oor. The next day, the fi nal 

cloture motion, on the new substitute, was fi led, but following 

a second all-night session, the Senate rejected this motion, 

53–41, and the measure was shelved. June 3–18, August 3–7, 

September 9–15, 1987; February 1, 17–26, 1988 (26 days).

1987–1988—S. 1420, H.R. 3, broadly revised and extended laws governing foreign trade and trade agreements. It received extensive consideration and amendment. Early in the course of consideration, controversy focused on an amendment to require 

a Senate vote on a Constitutional amendment to require a 

balanced budget, but apparent delaying actions occurred only 

with respect to two amendments addressing policy in the 

Persian Gulf. One of these, to restrict escorts of Kuwaiti oil 

tankers by U.S. warships, was offered on July 1, and cloture 

was rejected twice, by 57–42 on July 9 and by 53–40 on July 

14, when the amendment had been pending for six days. The 

other, to impose a 90-day moratorium on such escorts, was offered on July 9, and cloture was rejected, 54–44, on July 15, 

when the amendment had been pending for four days. The 

Senate then accepted a unanimous consent agreement providing for a compromise resolution of the balanced budget proposal. Under this agreement, both Persian Gulf amendments 

were withdrawn and cloture was deemed invoked on the bill. 

The Senate passed the House companion the following week, 

but a conference agreement was not reached until April 20, 

1988, and the Senate adopted it only after four additional 

days of consideration. President Reagan vetoed the measure, 

among other reasons because of its provision for advance notifi cation of plant closings and mass layoffs. June 25–July 21, 

1987; April 22–27, June 7–9, 1988 (21 days).

1988—S. 79, to provide for notifi cation to employees of high risk occupational diseases. Opponents, who considered the measure 

burdensome on businesses, offered a series of amendments 

(some of them raising broader, politically sensitive issues), 

which prevented consideration of amendments by proponents. 

The leadership moved cloture on the committee substitute at 

the outset of consideration and again on the following day. 

After the fi rst cloture vote failed, 33–59, proponents secured 

modifi cations to the substitute, then voted against the second 

cloture motion in order to offer opponents time to examine 

the modifi ed measure, so that cloture failed, 2–93. Thereafter, 

opponents continued to extend consideration, and after two 

further cloture motions on the substitute also failed to attract 

even majority support, the bill was returned to the calendar. 

March 18–29 (eight days).
82

1988—S.J. Res. 282 was a constitutional amendment to allow Congress and the states to limit campaign spending. It came to 

the fl oor in return for the support of its sponsor, Senator Hollings, for cloture on S. 2 (the campaign fi nance bill). Senator 

Gramm offered a substitute to transform S.J. Res. 282 into 

a balanced budget constitutional amendment, to which Senator Hollings offered a substitute reconverting it to a campaign 

spending constitutional amendment. After the Senate rejected cloture, 52–42, on the Hollings substitute, it unanimously 

consented to a second cloture vote, but when this second vote 

again rejected cloture, 53–37, the measure was taken from 

the fl oor. April 18–22 (four days).

1988—H.R. 4222, to extend for six months an amnesty program for 

illegal aliens. Supporters argued that slow implementation by 

the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) made the 

extension necessary. When a Senator objected to a request for 

unanimous consent to consider H.R. 4222, the majority leader 

offered a motion to consider the bill and sought cloture on the 

motion, but when the Senate voted against cloture, 40–56, the 

attempt was abandoned. April 27–28, May 18 (three days).

1988—S. 2355, defense authorization. On May 13, the fi fth day of 

consideration of the bill, Senator D’Amato proposed amendments to authorize the death penalty for drug-related killings. 

After opponents threatened to block passage of the bill if this 

amendment were included, consideration was suspended from 

May 17 to 27, when a consent agreement was reached for consideration on June 8 of a bill (S. 2455) embodying the text of 

the D’Amato amendments. The agreement included specifi ed 

limitations on debate and amendments to the bill if cloture 

was invoked one day later. The Senate then readily passed S. 

2355 (but the House did not act on this measure). The Senate 

invoked cloture on S. 2455 on June 9 and passed it the next 

day. May 8–17, 27 (eight days).

1988—Treaty Doc. 100–11 was an agreement with the Soviet Union 

on intermediate nuclear forces, known as the INF treaty. Senator Helms and others delayed the Senate from turning to the 

resolution of ratifi cation by offering numerous amendments 

to the text of the treaty itself. After proponents moved for cloture on the treaty, some Senators raised the prospect in fl oor 

debate that if the 30 hours provided for consideration under 

cloture expired before the resolution of ratifi cation was presented, the Senate would be able to act only on amendments 

to the text of the treaty already pending and on committee 

amendments to the resolution of ratifi cation. The cloture 

vote was postponed several times, and ultimately vitiated, by 

unanimous consent, after which the Senate advised and consented to the treaty, 93–5. May 17–27 (nine days).

1988—S. 2527, P.L. 100–379, contained the provisions to require advance notifi cation of plant closings and mass layoffs to which 

President Reagan had objected in the trade bill, H.R. 3. After President Reagan vetoed H.R. 3, the Senate on June 22 

voted, fi rst, to reject a motion to table the motion to consider 

S. 2527, and, then, to adopt the motion to consider. On June 

27–28, after several days of active consideration, four motions 
83

for cloture on the bill were fi led, and on June 29, after cloture 

was rejected, 58–39, a fi fth was fi led. On its second attempt, 

on July 6, the Senate invoked cloture, 88–5, then passed the 

measure. The Senate deferred action on broader trade legislation until the President allowed S. 2527 to pass into law without his signature. June 22–July 6 (seven days).

1988—S. 2662, H.R. 1154, to establish textile import quotas. Opponents feared the bill would threaten home-state importers 

with short supplies and exporters with retaliation. The Senate took up the bill, and Majority Leader Byrd moved cloture 

on it, before the August recess, but only when the Senate returned did Members invoke cloture on the bill. Senators also 

tabled a point of order that the bill was unconstitutional. The 

bill passed on September 9, but opponents delayed routine action to amend the House companion with the Senate text and 

pass it until, by September 15, they felt assured of the votes 

to sustain an expected veto. (Ultimately, the House sustained 

the veto). August 10, September 7–15 (seven days).

1988—S. 837, to increase the minimum wage. Although the Senate 

readily adopted the motion to consider the bill, 87–7, opponents extended debate against the measure itself. After the 

Senate rejected two cloture motions on the committee substitute, 53–43 and 56–35, Majority Leader Byrd returned the 

measure to the calendar. September 15–23 (six days).

1988—S. 2488, a parental-leave bill. On the fourth day of consideration, September 29, Majority Leader Byrd moved to recommit the bill with instructions to report a substitute including 

child-care provisions and sought cloture on his motion. On 

the following day, the Senate tabled a motion to postpone the 

measure until October 6, and on October 3, the Senate adopted the cloture motion, 85–6. By October 5, the Senate had 

exhausted the allotted 30 hours of post-cloture debate, apparently for the fi rst time since the 30-hour cap was established 

in 1986. The Senate then agreed by voice vote to recommit the 

bill, and a cloture motion was fi led on the committee reported 

substitute, as amended. On October 7, the Senate rejected cloture, 50–46, and the measure was returned to the calendar. 

September 26–October 7 (10 days).

1988—H.R. 1495, to declare 90 percent of the Great Smoky Mountains Park a wilderness. Senators who opposed provisions regarding access to family gravesites in the park denied unanimous consent to consider the measure. The majority leader 

twice sought cloture on his motion to consider the measure, 

but after both motions were defeated, 49–35 on June 20 and 

54–42 on June 21, the measure was returned to the calendar. 

June 16–21 (four days).

1989—H.R. 1231, to suspend a strike at Eastern Airlines and establish a presidential board to resolve it. A fi rst attempt to secure cloture on a motion to consider was abandoned on April 

4 in the face of opposition to government intervention in the 

strike. A second attempt began on September 29, when an 

alternative providing only for a commission to make recommendations had been crafted. The Senate invoked cloture on 

the motion to consider the bill on October 3 and took up the 
84

bill on October 17. The alternative plan was offered in the 

form of a complete substitute on October 23, and cloture was 

moved on it the following day. On October 26 the Senate voted 

for cloture, 62–38, adopted the substitute, 65–35, and passed 

H.R. 1231 as thus amended by voice vote. Although the House 

accepted the Senate’s version, President Bush vetoed it, and 

the House sustained the veto. March 17, April 4, September 

29–October 26 (eight days).

1989—H.R. 3628, to reduce capital gains taxes. In the House, a 

bipartisan coalition initially added the proposal, backed by 

President Bush, to the 1990 budget reconciliation bill (H.R. 

3299), but the version reported by the Senate Committee on 

Finance struck this provision, which meant that it could be 

restored on the Senate fl oor only if 60 Senators voted to waive 

a restriction in the Rules and permit consideration of it. Senators instead reached an agreement to pass H.R. 3299 without this and several other extraneous provisions. Conferees 

deadlocked over whether to include the capital gains tax cut 

until the President accepted its omission from the conference 

report, at which point the House re-passed the cut as a separate measure, H.R. 3628. The Senate took up H.R. 3628 under 

a unanimous consent agreement pursuant to which Senator 

Packwood offered an alternative plan, with one cloture vote to 

occur on the alternative after three hours’ debate, and another on the following day. Under this agreement, after cloture 

was rejected, 51–47, on both votes, the Senate returned the 

measure to the calendar. November 13–15 (three days).

1990—S.J. Res. 212 designated a day of remembrance for Armenians 

killed under the Ottoman Empire between 1915 and 1923. 

Opposition, led by Senator Byrd, focused on the use of the 

word genocide and concern about offending Turkey. Minority 

Leader Dole moved cloture twice on the motion to proceed to 

consider the resolution, but after both cloture motions were 

defeated, by 49–49 on February 22 and 48–51 on February 

27, the Senate took no further action. February 20–March 1 

(fi ve days).

1990—S. 1970, H.R. 5269, criminal justice. After taking up the Senate bill on May 21, the Senate acted on numerous amendments, but Senators who wished to offer others, together with 

opponents of provisions banning a group of assault weapons, 

defeated two motions for cloture on the bill, by 54–37 on June 

5 and 57–37 on June 7. Consideration was suspended until June 28, when the Senate reached a unanimous consent 

agreement providing for consideration of additional amendments and a fi nal vote. The measure passed, still including 

the assault weapons ban, on July 11, 94–6. The Senate later 

received the House companion and passed it, as amended 

with the Senate text, on October 23, but the measure was 

never reported from conference. May 21–June 7, June 28–29, 

July 11, October 23 (11 days).

1990—S. 2104 sought to strengthen remedies against discrimination in employment. The Bush Administration and Senate 

opponents of the bill objected that its authorization of suits 

against employment practices if they had a disparate negative 
85

impact on women or minorities would effectively compel employers to adopt quota systems. The Senate considered the bill 

intermittently while trying to negotiate an acceptable compromise on this question. In June, an initial motion for cloture 

on a motion to consider was vitiated when the Senate gave 

unanimous consent to take up the bill after the July 4 recess. 

In July, the Senate voted cloture, 62–38, on a new full-text 

substitute, offered as a replacement for the committee substitute by Senator Kennedy, chair of the reporting committee, 

thereby vitiating additional petitions on both the substitute 

and the bill. Under a unanimous consent agreement, the Senate then adopted a further revision of the substitute by voice 

vote, and passed the bill, 65–34. Ultimately, however, the Senate narrowly failed, 66–34, to override President Bush’s veto. 

June 22–July 18, September 18, October 16, 24 (10 days).

1990—S. 1224, to raise automobile fuel effi ciency standards. The 

Senate invoked cloture, 68–28, on a motion to consider the 

bill, but when it later rejected cloture on the committee substitute, 57–42, Senators Bryan and Gorton, the co-sponsors of 

the measure, withdrew it from further consideration. September 12–25 (fi ve days).

1991—S. 429, to prohibit retail price fi xing by manufacturers. Opponents considered the bill unfair to businesses, and President 

Bush threatened a veto. The Senate, however, quickly invoked 

cloture fi rst on a motion to consider, 61–37, and the next day 

on the bill, 63–35, then, on the following day, passed the bill. 

Ultimately, however, the House defeated the conference report. April 25, May 6–9, 1991; March 18, 1992 (six days).

1991—S. 1435, foreign aid authorization. The Senate readily invoked cloture on the motion to consider, 87–10, but Administration supporters opposed amendments to contribute to the 

U.N. Population Fund (because the Fund operated in China, 

which they said maintained a policy of forced abortions) and 

to restrict aid to El Salvador. After the Senate rejected, 43–56, 

a motion to table the El Salvador proposal, immediate cloture 

votes occurred by unanimous consent on both amendments, 

with each to be withdrawn if cloture was defeated. The Senate rejected cloture on the El Salvador amendment, 43–56, 

but invoked it, 63–33 on the Population Fund amendment. 

It then adopted the latter after sponsors of two other proposals (to require Middle East arms purchasers to demonstrate 

progress in democratization and development, and opposing 

the linkage of aid to Israel with its policy on settlements in 

occupied territory) withdrew them in response to threatened 

fi libusters, even though the Senate had also defeated, 39–57, 

a motion to table the Middle East amendment. The Senate 

then passed the bill, but the House later rejected the conference report. July 22–26, October 8 (fi ve days).

1991—S. 1220, to establish a national energy strategy, responded 

to concerns about oil supply after the Persian Gulf War. A 

motion to consider the measure was not offered until four 

months after the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources originated the bill, and opponents, who objected especially 

to its provisions for oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
86

Refuge, extended debate on the motion. After the Senate rejected cloture on the motion to consider, 50–44, the bill was 

abandoned. (Further action occurred in 1992 on S. 2166 and 

H.R. 776, below.) October 30–November 1 (three days).

1991–1992—S. 1241, H.R. 3371, broadening the Federal death penalty, banning assault weapons, and providing aid for local law 

enforcement. In a month of intermittent initial consideration, 

the Senate considered numerous amendments, adopting one 

to regulate handgun purchases (the “Brady bill”), but rejecting an array of others and tabling a nongermane amendment 

to ban racial preferences in employment. The Senate rejected 

cloture twice, by 41–38 on June 28 and 56–43 on July 10, 

but on the following day, after several more amendments were 

adopted, it invoked cloture 71–27, and passed the bill, 71–26. 

The House returned S. 1241 as containing revenue provisions, 

so in November the two houses went to conference on the 

House companion bill, H.R. 3371. The Senate made several 

attempts to consider the conference report, which President 

Bush and Senate Republicans opposed as not suffi ciently loosening evidentiary rules or restricting challenges to death sentences, but rejected cloture on November 27, 1991, 49–38, and 

March 19, 1992, 54–43. The Senate again took up the conference report on May 14, after Republicans threatened to offer 

their anti-crime proposals to another bill before the Senate 

(S. 250, the “motor voter” bill, discussed next), but then once 

more laid it aside. A fi nal attempt was made on September 30, 

but the measure died after the Senate again rejected cloture, 

55–43, on October 2. June 20–28, July 8–11, November 21, 

27, 1991; March 5, 19, May 6–7, 14, September 30, October 2, 

1992 (20 days).

1991–1992—S. 250 would have required states to permit voters to 

register while applying for a driver’s license (“motor voter”). 

Opponents objected that it would facilitate voter fraud. On 

July 18, 1991, the Senate rejected two motions for cloture on 

motions to consider, 57–41 and 59–40. A motion to consider 

and associated cloture motion were not again offered until October 25, and the Senate did not vote on that cloture motion 

until May 7, 1992, but then invoked cloture, 61–28, and took 

up the measure by unanimous consent. When Senator Kasten 

immediately offered an amendment adding federal standards 

for product-liability suits, the leadership moved cloture on the 

committee substitute for S. 250. Cloture would have precluded 

nongermane amendments, but the motion failed on May 12, 

58–40. Senator Mitchell moved to reconsider it, but on May 

14 the Senate instead tabled the Kasten amendment. Because 

Senator Gramm was prepared to offer Republican legislation 

against crime as an amendment to the bill, the majority leader then laid S. 250 aside and turned to other legislation in 

which the Republican-backed crime package appeared, after 

which he obtained unanimous consent that the Senate further 

consider only specifi ed germane amendments to S. 250. The 

Senate returned to S. 250 on May 19 and passed it the next 

day, 61–38, after tabling most of the specifi ed amendments. 

The House passed the bill as well, but the President vetoed it, 
87

and the Senate failed to override the veto, 62–38. July 16–18, 

October 25, 1991; May 7, 12–20, September 21–22, 1992 (11 

days).

1992—S. 640 embodied the legislation regulating personal injury 

lawsuits resulting from faulty products that Senator Kasten 

had offered as an amendment to the “motor voter” bill. Majority Leader Mitchell immediately moved cloture on his motion to consider and, when the Senate rejected cloture, 57–39, 

he immediately moved that the Senate reconsider the vote. 

On reconsideration, the Senate again defeated cloture, 58–38. 

September 8–10 (two days).

1991–1992—S. 2 established block grants and goals for elementary 

and secondary education. The Senate took the subject up as 

the fi rst major business of the second session, immediately 

invoked cloture on the motion to consider by 93–0, and passed 

the bill 92–6 in a version that rejected the Administration’s 

plan for education vouchers for private schools. Later, however, the Senate agreed to go to conference with the House version, which also omitted “school choice,” only after invoking 

cloture on the motion to disagree to the House amendment, 

85–6. The conference report, which still omitted many features of President Bush’s “America 2000” education proposals, 

failed enactment when the Senate rejected cloture on the matter, 59–40. November 27, 1991; January 21–28, September 10, 

15, 30, October 2, 1992 (11 days). 

1992—S. 1504, H.R. 2977, P.L. 102–356, reauthorizing the Corporation for Public Broadcasting. The Senate readily invoked cloture on the motion to consider the bill, 87–7, but did not vote 

on proceeding to the bill, however, as Minority Leader Dole 

proposed to offer the Republican alternative to the crime bill 

as a substitute. Majority Leader Mitchell had the Senate lay 

the measure aside and turned to the conference report on the 

crime bill. The Senate returned to the reauthorization three 

months later and passed the House companion. February 27–

March 4, June 2–3 (fi ve days).

1992—S. 55, to prohibit hiring permanent replacements for striking 

employees. After supporters failed to close debate on the committee substitute, 55–41, on the third day of consideration, 

they offered an alternative to permit replacement hiring under some circumstances after mediation. On the sixth day of 

debate, the Senate again rejected cloture, 57–42, and the majority leader withdrew the bill. June 9–16 (six days).

1992—S. 2733 proposed stricter capital standards and mandates to 

fi nance affordable housing for the Federal National Mortgage 

Association and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation 

(“Fannie Mae” and “Freddie Mac”). Delay in fl oor consideration stemmed largely from an attempt to attach a proposed 

constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, as 

opponents of the amendment extended debate over four days. 

By unanimous consent, the Senate ordered two cloture votes 

on successive days on the amendment; if both failed, the 

amendment was to be withdrawn and a vote on the bill to follow. The Senate rejected cloture on both attempts, 56–39, the 

amendment was withdrawn, and the Senate then passed the 
88

bill. (Its opponents blocked unanimous consent to send it to 

conference, but similar provisions were ultimately enacted in 

H.R. 5334, P.L. 102–550.) June 23–July 2 (six days).

1992—H.R. 11 established special tax treatment for urban enterprise 

zones and expanded deductions for individual retirement accounts, along with other tax provisions. No delays attended 

initial consideration, but Senator D’Amato extended proceedings on the conference report by demanding that the conference report be read in full because his amendment protecting 

domestic typewriter makers against foreign imports had been 

dropped in conference. Cloture was then moved on the conference report, and the next day the Senate by unanimous 

consent also substituted the typewriter provisions for the text 

of H.R. 3837 (originally a measure altering laws on Medicare 

payments, pension funding, and other matters) and passed 

this bill in that form (although no further action occurred on 

this measure). On the following day, the Senate invoked cloture on the conference report by 80–10, after which it adopted 

the report, but President Bush pocket vetoed the legislation. 

August 11–12, September 23–29, October 6, 8 (nine days).

1993—S. 460, H.R. 2, P.L. 103–31. The “motor voter” bill required 

states to offer voter registration with driver’s license applications and at certain public offi ces. On a second attempt the 

Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed, 62–38. After 

an amendment to prohibit registration at welfare and other 

offi ces was defeated, the Senate rejected cloture on S. 460, 

59–41, but passed the bill after the requirement to include 

those offi ces was replaced with permissive language. The conference report on H.R. 2 restored the requirement in a modifi ed form, but the Senate ultimately invoked cloture on the 

report, 63–37, and adopted it, 62–36. March 3–17, May 5–11 

(12 days).

1993—H.R. 1335, P.L. 103–24. One of President Clinton’s fi rst major proposals was a $16 billion package of appropriations for economic stimulus programs. Senate opponents offered a series 

of amendments to strip components from the Senate’s substitute amendment. After four attempts to invoke cloture on 

the substitute failed, the fi nal attempt by 56–43, the Senate 

stripped out all provisions except for an extension of unemployment benefi ts. In that form, the measure passed the Senate and was enacted. March 23–April 21 (13 days).

1993—S. 919, H.R. 2020, P.L. 103–82, established education grants 

for participants in community service programs. Opposition 

to the cost was strong enough that two motions for cloture 

on the committee substitute were vitiated for lack of support, 

and supporters offered an alternative with a spending cap 

and shorter authorization. After one cloture motion on the alternative failed, 59–41, the Senate accepted the plan, vitiated 

another cloture motion, and passed the measure. July 20–August 3, September 8 (10 days).

1993—H.R. 2520, P.L. 103–138, the fi scal 1994 interior appropriations bill, included increases in grazing fees opposed by many 

Western Senators. When the conference agreement retained 

the increases, in a compromise form, opponents vigorously 
89

fought the measure, defeating three cloture motions (a fourth 

was vitiated). After the Senate insisted on its grazing provision and the House concurred, the measure went on to enactment. September 14–15, October 21–November 9 (seven 

days).

1993—Nomination of Walter Dellinger to head the Offi ce of Legal 

Counsel. Opponents objected to the nominee’s views and his 

testimony against the 1987 Supreme Court nomination of 

Robert Bork. Two cloture motions were fi led at the outset of 

three days’ debate; the next day the Senate rejected the fi rst 

by one vote, but the second became moot when the Senate 

confi rmed the nomination, 65–34. October 6–13 (three days).

1993—S. 414, H.R. 1025, P.L. 103–159. The “Brady bill” required a 

waiting period to purchase a handgun. Two cloture attempts 

failed when they received 57 votes of support each, but the 

Senate subsequently was able to pass the bill after an agreement was struck on a modifi cation to shorten the period for 

which the program was authorized. Senate opponents objected when the conference report included the House’s sunset 

provision instead of the shorter one agreed to by the Senate, 

but after securing agreement that the Senate would later take 

up a bill to modify the language in the conference report, the 

Senate approved it, and action on two motions for cloture on 

it became unnecessary. November 19–20, 23–24 (four days).

1993–1994—S. 3, fi nancing of congressional campaigns. In 1993, 

the Senate rejected two motions for cloture on the bill in the 

course of 11 days’ consideration before supporters accepted 

removal of most provisions for public fi nancing and the inclusion of various other amendments. The Senate then invoked 

cloture, 62–37, and passed the bill. The Senate took steps toward conference only in late 1994, after informal negotiations 

had reached a resolution of differences with a House companion bill. Debate on a motion to disagree with the House 

amendments persisted even after the Senate invoked cloture 

by 96–2. The Senate then adopted the motion to disagree, 

93–0, but debate was again extended on the motion to request 

a conference. After twice failing to invoke cloture on this motion, the Senate abandoned further proceedings. May 21–June 

17, 1993; September 20–30, 1994 (20 days).

1994—S. 1150, H.R. 1804, P.L. 103–227, the “Goals 2000” bill, set 

national goals for elementary and secondary education. After 

fi ve days’ debate, the Senate initially passed S. 1150 including an amendment to withhold federal funds from districts 

not permitting voluntary student prayer. When the conference 

report on the companion bill, H.R. 1804, only forbade districts 

from using federal funds to prevent such prayer, supporters 

of the earlier language demanded that the report be read in 

full and, in post-midnight proceedings, attempted to secure 

adoption of a concurrent resolution directing its restoration 

in the fi nal version of the bill. After this and several other 

unanimous consent arrangements were objected to, the Senate voted to consider the conference report, 60–31, and two 

cloture motions were immediately fi led. A day later, having 

turned to other business in the meantime, the Senate again 
90

voted to consider the conference report, 83–12, and two more 

cloture motions were fi led. Finally, in another post-midnight 

session early on a Saturday on which a recess would start, 

the Senate invoked cloture on the fi rst attempt, 62–23, and 

agreed to the conference report, 63–22. February 2–8, March 

2, 23–26 (10 days).

1994—H.R. 3345, P.L. 103–226, offered $25,000 payments for voluntary retirements of federal managers. Initially, the Senate 

had easily passed its version, including a provision putting 

savings into a fund to fi nance crime reduction programs, but 

supporters of this provision opposed the conference report, 

from which it was dropped. The Senate voted to consider the 

conference report, 62–29, and two cloture motions were fi led. 

The next day, cloture was fi rst rejected, 58–41, then invoked, 

63–36, when, according to news reports, Senators concerned 

a further conference might drop benefi ts for their states 

changed their votes. The Senate then adopted the conference 

report. February 11, March 11, March 23–24 (four days).

1994—S. 4, H.R. 820, provided support for electronic technology 

fi rms to compete globally, but Senate opponents objected to 

the cost, attempted to attach amendments addressing other 

protections for commerce, and defeated a motion for cloture 

on the committee substitute, 56–42. Modifi cations made a 

vote on a second cloture motion unnecessary and the Senate 

passed the bill, but a conference committee never reported. 

March 3–16 (seven days).

1994—S. 21, P.L. 103–433 established new national parks and wilderness areas covering large areas of the California desert. 

Though California Senators pressed for action, the Senate put 

off debating a motion to take up the bill for two weeks, but 

then approved the motion after a cloture motion was withdrawn. Numerous amendments were offered, but the bill 

passed on the second day of consideration. Opponents, who 

cited the expense of the project and the removal of land from 

commercial and military uses, debated the motion to disagree 

with the House amendments and, later, the conference report, 

but in each case cloture was invoked on the next day and the 

question agreed to. March 26, April 11–13, September 20–23, 

October 4–8 (nine days).

1994—Nomination of Sam Brown to head the U.S. delegation to 

the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe. Opposition stemmed from Brown’s leadership of protests against 

the Vietnam War and his performance as head of the ACTION volunteer service agency. Upon fi rst being considered, 

the nomination was recommitted after a cloture motion was 

withdrawn. After the nomination was re-reported, two cloture 

votes failed, the second vote was 56–42, and consideration 

was terminated. April 12–13, May 19–25 (six days).

1994—S. 349 initially passed the Senate in 1993 as a measure for 

disclosure of lobbying activities; the conference report also included restrictions on gifts from lobbyists. Objections to the 

conference report focused on the impact of the disclosure requirements on “grass roots” organizations, but a unanimous 

consent request to adopt a concurrent resolution to strike the 
91

provisions affecting “grass roots” lobbying from the fi nal version of the measure met objection, after which the Senate rejected cloture on the conference report twice during four days’ 

consideration, 52–46 and 55–42. (Cloture would have required 

two-thirds of Senators voting, because the measure included 

a change in Senate Rules.) May 4–6, 1993; October 3–7, 1994 

(seven days).

1994—S. 687 regulated lawsuits and limited liability for injuries 

caused by manufactured products. Opponents objected to the 

bill’s limitations on product liability and threatened numerous amendments that would bring in such subjects as tobacco 

and gun control. The Senate twice rejected cloture on the bill, 

the second time, 57–41, despite sponsors’ offer to drop a prohibition against punitive damages for products approved by the 

Food and Drug Administration. The bill was returned to the 

calendar. June 24–29 (four days).

1994—S. 55 prohibited hiring permanent replacements for striking 

workers. A motion to consider was withdrawn after extensive 

debate and two failed cloture votes. July 1–13 (four days).

1994—S. 1513, H.R. 6, P.L. 103–382 reauthorized elementary and 

secondary education programs. Opponents fought the conference report on H.R. 6 because it dropped House language denying federal funds to school districts that did not permit voluntary student prayer in favor of a Senate provision denying 

funds only to districts under court order to permit such prayer. 

On the fourth day of debate, the Senate approved the fi rst of 

two cloture motions, 75–24, and the conference report, 77–20. 

July 27–August 2, September 30–October 5 (nine days).

1995—H.J. Res. 1, proposing a constitutional amendment to require 

a balanced budget. After 14 days of consideration and the 

failure of numerous amendments, three cloture motions were 

fi led in two days. The fi rst was defeated, 57–42, but when it 

became clear that the second would likely win, the leaders 

were able to negotiate a unanimous consent agreement for a 

fi nal vote. The constitutional amendment was defeated by a 

vote of 65–35, short of the two-thirds required for passage. 

Majority Leader Dole fi led a motion to reconsider but the 

amendment failed on reconsideration, 64–35. January 30–31, 

1995; February 1–28, 1995; March 2, 1995; June 4–6, 1996 

(23 days).

1995—H.R. 889, P.L. 104–6, was an emergency supplemental appropriations bill. An amendment to the bill would have prohibited funding to implement an executive order barring federal 

contractors from hiring replacement workers. After a vote 

to table the amendment failed, leadership fi led two cloture 

motions on consecutive days; the fi rst failed 58–39, the second was withdrawn after it became clear the votes had not 

changed. The amendment was withdrawn. March 7–16, April 

6 (nine days).

1995—S. 1, P.L. 104–4, restricting unfunded federal mandates to 

state and local governments. After an initial cloture motion 

failed, 54–44, supporters of the measure fi led two additional cloture petitions. Those were withdrawn after a unanimous consent agreement was reached that limited additional 
92

amendments to the measure (to 62) and provided for a fi nal 

vote on the bill. January 12–27, March 15 (11 days).

1995—H.R. 1158, making rescissions to appropriations for FY1995 

and providing assistance for various disasters. The text of S. 

617 was offered as a full text substitute for H.R. 1158. Several policy disagreements slowed consideration, including 

the level of the proposed rescissions, an amendment to bar 

fi nancial support for the Mexican peso, and a potential battle 

over Medicaid abortion policy. When cloture on the substitute 

failed, 56–44, after fi ve days’ debate, an alternative was developed that reduced the overall amount of the rescissions. 

The peso amendment was withdrawn, and the abortion fi ght 

never materialized. A second cloture motion on the original 

substitute fell, and the amended substitute was passed by 

voice vote. The President vetoed this bill, and Congress did 

not attempt to override it. The President later signed another 

measure (H.R. 1944) that rescinded some FY1995 spending. 

March 29–31, April 3–6, May 24–25 (nine days).

1995—Nomination of Henry W. Foster to be Surgeon General. Opponents objected to the nominee’s views on abortion. Two cloture 

motions were fi led at the outset of consideration, and a unanimous consent agreement proved for three hours of debate 

prior to the cloture votes. The Senate rejected both cloture 

motions by identical 57–43 votes. The nomination was never 

confi rmed. June 21–22 (two days).

1995–1996—H.R. 956, sought to restrict product liability lawsuits. 

The text of S. 565 was offered as a full text substitute to H.R. 

956. The Senate agreed to amendments to limit frivolous lawsuits, medical malpractice liability, and punitive damages in 

all civil cases. After opponents defeated two cloture motions 

on the substitute, as amended, the majority offered a new 

substitute that did not include the amendments. Cloture was 

rejected on the new substitute, 43–49. After an agreement to 

drop more lawsuit restrictions from the bill, cloture was invoked on the amended substitute by a vote of 60–38. Almost 

a year later, conferees completed work on the fi nal bill. Two 

cloture motions were immediately fi led on the conference report, and cloture was invoked 60–40. The President vetoed 

the bill and the House sustained the veto. April 24–May 10, 

1995; March 15–21, 1996 (16 days).

1995—S. 343, to limit government regulatory powers. Opponents 

argued that an alternative offered by Majority Leader Dole 

would have unduly hindered government regulation in some 

important areas, such as food safety. After consideration and 

approval of numerous amendments to limit the reach of the 

substitute, the Senate failed to invoke cloture on the measure 

by a vote of 48–46. A second substitute was proposed and rejected by the Senate, 48–52. After two further cloture motions 

also failed, 53–47, and 58–40, Majority Leader Dole declared 

the measure effectively dead. June 28–30, July 10–20 (11 

days).

1995—S. 908, the Foreign Relations Revitalization Act, proposed to 

reorganize and consolidate offi ces in the State Department 

and related agencies, such as the Agency for International 
93

Development. Cloture was immediately fi led on the motion to 

proceed to the measure, because of a scheduling dispute, but 

was later withdrawn and the Senate took up the bill by unanimous consent. Cloture was immediately fi led on the bill, and 

a unanimous consent agreement was reached that provided 

for two cloture votes. Both failed and the bill was returned 

to the calendar. Three months later, the Senate adopted a 

scaled-back version of the bill as a complete substitute for the 

House-passed version, H.R. 1561, and passed the bill in that 

form. The President vetoed the bill and the House sustained 

the veto. July 26–31, August 1, December 14 (fi ve days).

1995—H.R. 927, P.L. 104–114, to tighten U.S. economic sanctions 

against Cuba represented a response of the Republican-controlled Congress to President Clinton’s modifi cation of the 

U.S. embargo to permit more travel and trade. A key provision would have allowed U.S. citizens whose properties were 

expropriated by the government of Fidel Castro to seek legal 

redress in U.S. courts against foreign corporations that took 

over those properties. Bipartisan opposition to that provision 

twice prevented the Senate from invoking cloture on the substitute amendment offered by Majority Leader Dole. Once 

Senators agreed to drop the property provision, the Senate invoked cloture, 98–0. While the House and Senate were negotiating the fi nal version of the measure, Cuba shot down two 

aircraft, killing four Americans. A substantially tougher version of the bill emerged from conference, quickly passed the 

Senate and House and was signed by the President. October 

11–24; November 13; December 14; March 3, 1996 (9 days).

1995–1996—S. 562, H.R. 1555, P.L. 104–104, a bill overhauling 

telecommunication law, was brought to the fl oor as a centrist 

compromise with strong majority and minority support. Opponents sought signifi cant changes to various provisions of the 

bill, and numerous amendments and speeches kept the bill 

on the fl oor for six days. Two cloture motions were eventually 

fi led, the fi rst of which passed 89–11. June 7–13, October 13, 

February 1 (1996) (nine days).

1996—S. 1541, H.R. 2854, P.L. 104–127, the Agricultural Reform 

and Improvement Act of 1996, was designed to replace support payments to farmers with payments on a fi xed, declining 

schedule over the seven-year life of the bill. Majority Leader 

Dole brought the bill directly to the fl oor without committee 

consideration, and cloture was fi led immediately both on the 

bill and on a full substitute that would have modifi ed the 

fi xed payment plan and reauthorized several key conservation and food programs. The Senate rejected cloture on the 

bill, 53–45, and on the substitute, 59–34, but the closeness of 

the votes suggested that cloture would ultimately be achievable, which fostered negotiations that resulted in easy Senate 

passage and, later, enactment of a version of the bill that retained a fi xed, declining payment schedule, but did not repeal 

permanent farm law. January 31, February 1–7, March 27–28 

(seven days).

1996—S. 1936, the Nuclear Waste Policy Act of 1996. The measure, 

to construct an interim nuclear waste storage site at Yucca 
94

Mountain in Nevada, was determinedly opposed by the state’s 

two Senators. Supporters successfully invoked cloture on the 

motion to proceed to the measure, 65–34, but opponents, who 

hoped to delay proceedings suffi ciently to preclude Congress 

from completing action on the measure and on overriding 

an expected veto, were reportedly prepared to offer numerous amendments. Before a cloture vote on the bill could occur, 

opponents agreed to a unanimous consent agreement for an 

additional eight hours of debate on the bill and amendments 

thereto. The Senate passed the bill, but faced with a crowded 

legislative calendar and a promised veto, the House did not 

take up the bill. July 11–31 (four days).

1996—H.R. 3539, P.L. 104–264, reauthorized the Federal Aviation 

Administration. When the conference report came up for consideration in the Senate, some members opposed a provision to 

make it more diffi cult for workers in express mail companies 

to unionize. Although the motion to consider the conference 

report was not debatable, leadership immediately moved for 

cloture on the motion to consider, in hopes of demonstrating 

support suffi cient for cloture on the conference report itself. 

The Senate tabled, 97–0, a motion to postpone consideration 

of the motion to proceed. Opponents forced the reading of the 

entire conference report to forestall a fi nal vote, then accepted 

a unanimous consent agreement to proceed to its consideration, in exchange for extended debate on the express mail 

provision. Cloture was fi led on the conference report. The Senate debated the measure for 6 hours over two days, and then 

invoked cloture, 66–31. A point of order was then sustained 

that the express mail provision was outside the scope of the 

conference. The Senate overturned that ruling, by a vote of 

39–56, and then agreed to the conference report, 92–2. September 18–30, October 1–3 (seven days).

1996—H.R. 2937, was a bill to reimburse the legal expenses of seven 

fi red White House travel offi ce employees. A series of amendments by the majority leader fi lled the amendment tree, and 

opponents declined to accept limits on debate so long as this 

action prevented then from offering an amendment to raise 

the minimum wage. Two attempts to invoke cloture on the 

measure failed. Majority Leader Dole withdrew his amendments and offered an alternative amendment that combined a 

minimum wage increase with repeal of a gasoline tax, but the 

Senate failed to invoke cloture on it. A further attempt to get 

cloture on an amendment to repeal the gas tax also failed, and 

the Senate never completed action on the bill. Funds to reimburse the travel offi ce workers were included in an FY1997 

appropriations bill (H.R. 3756). May 3–14 (seven days).

1996—S. Res. 227 would have granted an additional $600,000 and 

unlimited time for investigation to the Special Committee to 

Investigate Whitewater Development Corporation. Opponents 

argued that there was no need to continue the life of the committee, which had expired on February 29, 1996 (fl oor debate 

on the measure took place in March and April). Over 15 days, 

proponents fi led eight cloture motions on the motion to consider the resolution. The fi rst six were rejected, generally along 
95

party lines; the seventh and eighth were withdrawn, and the 

Senate never completed action on the resolution. Instead, the 

Senate agreed by unanimous consent to a second resolution 

(S. Res. 246) that provided $450,000 for the expenses of the 

committee and extended its authority to June 17. March 6–29, 

April 15–17 (15 days).

1996—H.R. 1296, a bill to provide administration for certain federal 

properties at the Presidio of San Francisco. Cloture was immediately fi led on a substitute adding dozens of other park 

and land provisions to the measure, including a controversial 

Utah wilderness provision. Democrats offered, and moved cloture on, an amendment increasing the minimum wage. After 

cloture failed on both the substitute (51–49) and the minimum 

wage amendment (55–45), the bill was returned to the calendar. Weeks later, the Senate passed it by unanimous consent 

after adopting the substitute, minus the wilderness provision. 

Conferees restored the Utah provision, but neither chamber approved the conference report. Instead, the House and 

Senate passed at the very end of the session an alternative 

parks and lands bill, which included the Presidio provisions 

(H.R. 4236, P.L. 104–333) which was signed by the President. 

March 25–29, May 1–17, September 30, October 3 (nine days).

1996—H.R. 2546, the District of Columbia appropriations bill for 

FY1996, was initially easily approved in both chambers, but 

over several weeks, the Senate four times rejected cloture 

on the conference report, which included a House provision 

establishing a school voucher program. Eventually, funding 

for the District of Columbia was included in an omnibus bill 

(H.R. 3019, P.L. 104–134) that omitted the voucher provision. 

November 2–7, 1995, February 23–29, March 5–19, April 25 

(15 days).

1996—S. 1745, FY1997 Defense authorization. After more than a 

week of consideration, a cloture motion was fi led on the bill. 

Cloture was not invoked, 52–46, and a second cloture attempt 

also was unsuccessful, 53–43. A third cloture motion was 

withdrawn after the leaders worked out a unanimous consent 

that altered controversial language about deployment of missile defenses and provided for a Senate ratifi cation vote on the 

Chemical Weapons Convention. Following those changes, the 

Senate substituted the amended version of S. 1745 into the 

House-passed bill (H.R. 3230, P.L. 104–21) and agreed to the 

measure. June 18–July 10, September 9–10 (11 days).

1997—S. 4 would have amended the Fair Labor Standards Act to 

allow employees to choose compensatory time off instead of 

overtime pay. Opponents thought the bill would allow workers 

to be coerced by employers into taking the time off instead of 

overtime pay. After the bill was brought to the fl oor, two attempts at cloture on a committee-approved full text substitute 

failed, 53–47 and 51–47. May 1–15, June 2–4 (eight days).

1997—S. 1173, H.R. 2400, P.L. 105–178, the Transportation Equity 

Act, reauthorized highway and construction programs for six 

years. The majority precluded the minority from offering a 

rewrite of campaign fi nance laws (S. 25) as an amendment to 

the transportation measure by offering several amendments 
96

and fi lling the tree, and the minority responded with parliamentary delays. Four cloture motions on the modifi ed committee substitute amendment failed. The bill was returned to the 

calendar, and Congress enacted a six month authorization (S. 

1519, P.L. 105–130) for transportation projects, while it fi nished work on the larger measure. After the leadership agreed 

to bring up a campaign fi nance bill in early March, the Senate resumed consideration of the transportation bill. A new 

substitute for the entire bill, embodying expanded funding for 

highways and other transportation programs, was offered, on 

which the Senate invoked cloture, 96–3. It then passed the 

bill in that form, 96–4, and went to conference on the House 

companion. October 8–29, February 26–March 12, April 2 (20 

days).

1997—H.R. 2646 would have created tax-free savings accounts that 

could be used to pay for public or private school education for 

students of any age. Minority opponents of the bill defeated 

two cloture motions on the bill in late 1997, citing the lack of 

hearings and the inability to get a unanimous consent (UC) 

agreement on offering amendments. When the bill was taken 

up again in March 1998, supporters won cloture on the motion to proceed, 74–24, but two cloture votes on the bill failed, 

and supporters withdrew it from the fl oor. One month later, a 

UC agreement was reached that allowed the minority to offer 

10 amendments and the majority fi ve amendments to the bill. 

After considerable amendment activity, the Senate passed the 

bill, 56–43. A conference report on the measure later cleared 

the Senate, 59–36, but the President vetoed the bill, and the 

House did not attempt an override. October 29–November 4, 

1997; March 13–27, April 20–28, June 23–24, 1998 (18 days).

1997—S. 25, the Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act (known 

as McCain-Feingold), would have signifi cantly rewritten campaign fi nance laws. For months, the minority sought to attach 

the provisions of S. 25 to any major bill moving through the 

Senate, and used delaying tactics to extend debate on unrelated measures when they were prevented from offering it. 

The majority agreed to bring the bill to a fl oor vote in order to 

ease action on other bills. Majority Leader Lott fi lled the tree 

with versions of an amendment, opposed by the minority, to 

require that unions get member consent before using dues to 

make political donations. Cloture was fi led on the Lott amendment but failed, 52–48. Opponents of the underlying bill then 

successfully prevented cloture on the bill in three separate 

votes, and when cloture failed again on the Lott amendment, 

51–48, the bill was withdrawn from the fl oor. September 29, 

October 3–9 (seven days).

1997—S. 543, P.L. 105–19, the Volunteer Protection Act of 1997, was 

designed to enhance legal protections for volunteers acting on 

behalf of a non-profi t organization. The minority twice killed 

efforts to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, in protest 

for delay in confi rming Labor Secretary nominee Alexis Herman. The Senate took up the bill by unanimous consent on 

the same day Herman was confi rmed, and passed it, 99–1, the 

next day. The House passed S. 543 after inserting an amend97

ed version of H.R. 911, and the Senate by unanimous consent 

agreed to the House amendment. April 25–May 21 (six days).

1998—S. 648, would have rewritten product liability law. Supporters 

successfully invoked cloture on the motion to proceed, 71–24, 

but the minority was able to defeat cloture on the majority 

substitute amendment, in part because they argued cloture 

would prevent them from offering gun liability and other 

amendments. Once cloture was defeated, the bill was returned 

to the calendar. June 26, July 7–9 (three days).

1998—S. 1415 dealt with tobacco regulation. It would have raised 

taxes on cigarettes, penalized tobacco companies if youth 

smoking did not decrease, and capped liability on tobacco companies if certain conditions were met. The majority party was 

split over the bill’s provisions, and majority supporters found 

themselves in an unusual alliance with the minority against 

conservative members of the majority party. Opponents, who 

thought the terms too tough on the tobacco industry, engaged 

in numerous procedural delays—including extended debate 

and objections to limitations on the number of amendments—

and four attempts at cloture on the full text committee substitute were defeated. The fi nal blow for the bill came when the 

Senate declined to waive the Budget Act in regards to the bill, 

automatically sending it back to committee. May 14–21, June 

1–17 (17 days).

1998—H.R. 1270 would have created a nuclear waste storage site 

at Yucca Mountain, Nevada. The Nevada delegation’s vociferous opposition to the measure continued well into the 105th 

Congress. Though measures to open the plant had passed the 

House and Senate earlier in the Congress, tax issues required 

the Senate to consider a second, House-originated measure. 

After House Speaker Newt Gingrich announced the House 

would not take up a Yucca Mountain bill during the remainder of the 105th Congress, Senate support for cloture dropped 

below previous expectations and the chamber abandoned the 

measure after rejecting cloture, 56–39. May 22, June 2 (two 

days).

1998—S. 1873, legislation to develop and deploy a national anti-missile defense system, never made it to the Senate fl oor. Opponents wanted to delay deployment until further research was 

conducted. Two cloture votes on motions to proceed—held four 

months apart—were defeated by identical 59–41 tallies. May 

11–13, September 3–9 (fi ve days).

1998—S. 1663 would have prohibited corporations and labor unions 

from collecting fees from members or employees if such fees 

were to be used for political activities. It became the vehicle 

for a battle over a more comprehensive measure to rewrite 

campaign fi nance laws known as the McCain-Feingold bill 

(see also S. 25 above). Once the union bill was called up, 

Senator McCain offered his measure as a full text substitute. Another Senator then offered an amendment to prohibit 

companies and unions from sponsoring issue-advocacy advertisements during the fi nal days of congressional campaigns. 

Majority Leader Lott then fi lled the rest of the amendment 

tree. Efforts to table both the McCain-Feingold and the al98

ternative amendment failed, as did cloture on the substitute 

amendment, 51–48, and on the underlying bill, 45–54, either 

of which would have rendered the amendments out of order as 

nongermane. The bill was then committed to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. February 24–26 (three 

days).

1998—S. 1645 would have criminalized transporting minors across 

state lines for abortions. While the Senate voted 97–0 to invoke cloture on the motion to proceed, opponents who wanted 

to limit the reach of the bill, which the Clinton Administration 

threatened to veto, were able to hold together enough votes to 

prevent fi nal action on the measure. It was withdrawn after 

cloture on the committee full text substitute failed, 54–45. 

September 9–22 (six days).

1999–2000—H.R. 434, P.L. 106–200, removed certain quotas and 

reduced tariffs on some imports from Africa and the Caribbean. Senators from textile states sought to delay, modify or 

kill the bill. Cloture on the motion to proceed to consider the 

bill was easily invoked, 90–8, but further progress on the bill 

faltered because of disagreement between the majority and 

minority over scheduling votes to increase the minimum wage 

and to rewrite bankruptcy laws. In an effort to prevent the 

wage provision from being offered, Majority Leader Lott fi lled 

the amendment tree immediately after calling up the bill, 

which prevented other Senators from offering amendments, 

and then fi led cloture on a committee-endorsed full text substitute. Cloture failed, 45–46, but once the leaders agreed on 

scheduling the other matters, cloture was invoked 74–23, and 

the Senate passed the bill the next day. Cloture also was invoked on the conference report, 76–18, and the Senate then 

adopted it, 77–19. October 21–29, November 1–3, 1999; May 

10–11, 2000 (11 days).

1999—S. 96, H.R. 775, P.L. 106–37, to limit business’ liability linked 

to the year 2000 computer programming issue. To forestall 

amendments backed by consumer and trial-lawyer lobbies, as 

well as ongoing minority attempts to attach a minimum wage 

increase to measures reaching the fl oor, Majority Leader Lott 

offered a series of amendments to the bill, fi lling the amendment tree. Senator Kennedy was nevertheless able to offer the 

minimum wage proposal as instructions in a motion to recommit, but the Senate tabled his motion, 55–44. After the Senate 

also rejected cloture on the Lott full-text substitute, the bill 

was returned to the calendar. Later, after rejecting cloture on 

a motion to take the bill up again, the Senate reached a unanimous consent agreement on offering amendments, following 

which it easily passed its text under the number of the House 

companion. April 22–29, May 14–18, June 7–15 (12 days).

1999—S. 280, H.R. 800, P.L. 106–25, made it easier for states to 

get waivers from federal rules governing distribution of aid 

for education. The minority opposed cloture on the complete 

substitute because it would have prevented them from offering education amendments that might not be germane to the 

bill. Cloture on the substitute failed twice. After a unanimous 

consent agreement allowed fi ve majority and fi ve minority 
99

amendments to be offered, the Senate approved the House 

companion, 98–1, after substituting the amended text of S. 

280 for the House version of H.R. 800. A conference resolved 

the differences between the chambers, and the President 

signed the bill. (P.L. 106–25). March 3–11 (seven days).

1999—S. 557 would have limited the ability of Congress to designate 

legislation as “emergency” in order to bypass budget laws and 

rules. The bill was used as a vehicle for a controversial amendment to make it harder for Congress to use surplus Social Security money to “pay” for tax cuts or spending. As with many 

measures in this Congress, a key complaint from the minority was that the majority leader had fi lled the amendment 

tree to prevent consideration of additional amendments. Over 

the course of consideration, four efforts to invoke cloture, on 

three different versions of the amendment, never gained more 

than 54 votes, and the bill was withdrawn. April 20–30, June 

10–29, July 1–16 (11 days).

2001—H.R. 2311, P.L. 107–66, energy-water appropriations. When 

the Senate took up the House bill, a substitute amendment 

consisting of the text of S. 1171 (an original measure reported 

by the Appropriations Committee) was offered and agreed to. 

Consideration continued for almost a week as the minority 

protested in an effort to force action on a number of the President’s judicial and executive branch nominees. On the third 

day of debate, two cloture motions on the bill were fi led. After negotiators reached an agreement on a timetable for approval of nominees, the Senate came to a consent agreement 

to vote on the bill before the cloture motions were voted upon, 

and the measure passed the Senate, 97–2. A conference report 

was later agreed to 96–2. July 16–19, November 1, 2001 (fi ve 

days).

2001—H.R. 2299, P.L. 107–87, transportation appropriations. The 

Senate took up the House bill and a complete substitute 

amendment consisting of the text of S. 1178 (an original bill 

reported by the Appropriations Committee) was offered. After 

four days of debate, the majority leader fi led for cloture on 

the substitute amendment, which, among other things, established regulations on Mexican trucking, and also fi led cloture 

on the bill. Cloture was invoked on the substitute amendment, 

70–30. Opponents of the regulations continued to offer amendments to strip or limit the safety standards and engaged in 

other parliamentary tactics; the bill manager responded by 

offering several place-holder amendments and making multiple motions to table pending amendments. Later that day, 

the Senate adopted the committee substitute but failed to invoke cloture on the bill, 57–27. The leader then entered a motion to reconsider the vote. On August 1, the Senate agreed to 

reconsider the vote by which cloture was not invoked on the 

bill, and this time voted 100–0 to invoke cloture. After negotiations on stalled presidential nominations were concluded, 

the Senate passed the bill, as amended, by the substitute by 

voice vote. A conference report was later agreed to, 97–2. July 

19–27, August 1, December 4, 2001 (nine days).
100

2001—H.R. 2506, P.L. 107–115, foreign operations appropriations. 

On October 12, the majority leadership offered a motion to 

proceed to the bill and fi led cloture on it. After a weekend 

recess, the Senate rejected cloture, 50–46, and a second cloture motion on the motion to proceed was fi led. A unanimous 

consent agreement delayed voting on the motion for a week; 

cloture was again rejected, 50–47. The measure was largely 

non-controversial, but was being delayed by the minority in 

an effort to force consideration of more judicial nominations to 

the fl oor. The motion to consider was agreed to by unanimous 

consent on the same day, following the second failed cloture 

vote, after which the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to 

the committee-reported substitute amendment. The amended 

bill passed the Senate, 96–2; a conference report was later 

agreed to by unanimous consent. October 12–24, December 

20, 2001 (six days).

2001–2002—S. 1731, H.R. 2646, P.L. 107–171, agriculture policy 

(the farm bill). A motion to proceed to S. 1731 was made on 

November 30, and cloture was fi led on it that day. On December 5, the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to proceed, 

73–26; the motion to proceed was agreed to by unanimous 

consent the next day. On the third day of fl oor consideration, 

the leadership proposed a complete substitute amendment. 

The next day, a cloture motion was fi led on the substitute, but 

the Senate rejected cloture, 53–45. On December 18, the Senate reconsidered cloture on the substitute, and it failed again, 

54–43. The following day, a vote on another cloture motion 

(fi led two days earlier) also failed by the same margin. Opponents of the substitute disliked the legislation’s approach 

to federal commodity price supports, among other things. The 

leadership set aside the bill in late December, but the legislation was again taken up in February of 2002. Debate over 

amendments continued for six days. The substitute amendment, as amended, was agreed to by voice vote and incorporated into the corresponding House measure, which passed 

58–40. The conference report later was agreed to, 64–35, after 

two days on the fl oor. November 30, December 5–19, 2001; 

February 6–13, May 7–8, 2002 (19 days).

2002—S. 27, H.R. 2356, P.L. 107–155, campaign fi nance (Bipartisan 

Campaign Reform Act of 2002). The Senate spent 10 days considering its own bill, S. 27 (also known as McCain-Feingold), 

eventually passing it, 59–41, without use of a cloture process 

in April 2001. After fi nal passage, some Senators—pointing to 

the 41 Senators who voted ‘no’—threatened a fi libuster of any 

further vehicle (e.g., from the House) on the topic. Almost a 

year later, after the House completed a contentious (but ultimately successful) consideration of H.R. 2356 (also known as 

Shays-Meehan), Senate leadership started to negotiate with 

Senate opponents for fl oor consideration. Protracted discussions included public fi libuster threats and claims that allnight sessions to break a fi libuster might be in the offi ng. 

In March, after negotiations to bring the bill to the fl oor via 

unanimous consent were unsuccessful, the leadership moved 

to proceed to the bill and fi led a cloture motion on it; however, 
101

the next day the Senate agreed by unanimous consent to take 

up the bill the following week (and withdraw the motion to 

proceed and cloture on it). On the fi rst day of consideration, 

a cloture motion was fi led on the bill. Two days later, cloture 

was invoked, 68–32; pursuant to a unanimous consent agreement reached before the cloture vote, the Senate proceeded 

immediately to three hours of post-cloture consideration, and 

then passed the bill without amendment, 60–40. March 19–

22, March 26–30, April 2, 2001; March 13–14, March 18–20, 

2002 (15 days).

2002—S. 517, H.R. 4, energy policy, drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), federal oversight over energy trading 

markets. The Senate took up S. 517 by unanimous consent, 

and began considering an amendment in the nature of a substitute. Over the next few weeks, the Senate agreed to a number of non-controversial amendments. In the fourth week, an 

amendment dealing with federal regulatory oversight on energy trading markets was offered, and a cloture motion was 

fi led on it; two days later, the motion failed, 48–50. The next 

week, two amendments that would have allowed drilling in 

the ANWR were offered; cloture motions were immediately 

fi led on both. Cloture failed on each amendment (36–64 and 

46–54), and the amendments were eventually withdrawn. On 

the same day, a cloture motion was fi led on the complete substitute amendment. Cloture was later invoked, 86–13, and the 

Senate agreed to the substitute, as amended, by voice vote. 

The Senate substituted this language for the text of H.R. 4 

(the House energy bill), and passed H.R. 4, as amended, 88–

11. Conferees were appointed by each chamber, but no fi nal 

agreement was reached, and no further action occurred on the 

bill. February 15, March 5–21, April 8–25, May 1, 2002 (25 

days).

2002—H.R. 3009, P.L. 107–210, Andean trade, expedited procedures 

for bills to implement trade agreements. Intending to use 

H.R. 3009, a bill on Andean trade, as a vehicle for an omnibus trade package, the Majority Leader moved to proceed to 

the bill and fi led cloture on the motion. Cloture was invoked, 

69–21; two days later, the Senate agreed to the motion to proceed, 77–21. After an initial amendment in the nature of a 

substitute fell on a Budget Act point of order, the Majority 

Leader offered a new complete substitute. The substitute combined the Andean trade provisions, “fast-track” procedures for 

implementing trade agreements, and health insurance assistance for displaced workers, among other items. There was 

opposition from multiple quarters, with some Senators opposing the fast-track provisions and others opposing the worker 

aid provisions. After more than a week of consideration, cloture was fi led on the new substitute amendment and invoked, 

68–29. The amendment was agreed to by voice vote. (Earlier, 

another amendment granting assistance to displaced steelworkers was fi led; cloture was tried but failed, 56–40, and the 

amendment was withdrawn.) A cloture motion also had been 

fi led earlier on the underlying bill, but it was eventually withdrawn and the bill, as amended, was agreed to, 66–30. The 
102

Senate voted 66–33 to proceed to the conference agreement, 

and, after invoking cloture, 64–32, the Senate agreed to the 

conference report, 64–34. April 25–26, April 29–May 2, May 

6–23, July 30, August 1, 2002 (21 days).

2002—H.R. 5005, P.L. 107–296, creation of the Homeland Security 

Department. Issues of contention included whether the prospective head of the new entity created by the bill would be 

subject to Senate confi rmation, and the fl exibility the President would have in fashioning a new department (including 

personnel rules and the bargaining rights of departmental 

employees). H.R. 5005 refl ected the President’s proposal. A 

motion to proceed to the bill was made in the Senate before 

the August recess; cloture was fi led on the motion, but withdrawn. Once back from an August recess, the Senate agreed 

to the motion to proceed, 94–0. The next day, a substitute 

amendment (refl ecting the committee-reported alternative to 

a Senate companion bill, S. 2452) was offered; it provided less 

presidential authority in determining departmental organization and administration than the White House had proposed. 

After fi ve additional days of consideration, including a variety of amendments and extended fl oor speeches over multiple days by Senator Byrd and others, cloture was fi led on 

the substitute amendment, but failed, 50–49. A second cloture 

motion also failed, 49–49. (A reconsideration of that vote the 

next day also failed, 50–49.) An amendment was offered to the 

substitute (Gramm-Miller) that represented an option closer 

to the White House’s original proposal; two cloture motions 

on the amendment failed (44–53 and 45–52), though a motion 

to reconsider was entered on one of the votes. Many of the 

amendment’s proponents voted against cloture out of concern 

that the amendment’s opponents would offer a second-degree 

amendment that would undercut key elements of the GrammMiller amendment. The majority leader also offered all possible amendatory motions in relation to a motion to commit, 

hoping to freeze the parliamentary circumstances while Senators engaged in negotiations. Unable to come to an agreement 

on further disposition, the Senate suspended consideration of 

the bill for over six weeks. An alternative compromise proposal was negotiated during this time; a new vehicle, H.R. 

5710, was introduced and passed in the House. Upon taking 

H.R. 5005 back up, the Senate invoked cloture on the GrammMiller amendment (on reconsideration of a prior cloture motion), 89–8. However, the substitute amendment was then 

tabled, 50–47, causing the Gramm-Miller amendment to fall. 

A new substitute amendment representing the text of H.R. 

5710 was offered; cloture was immediately fi led on it and on 

the underlying measure. Notwithstanding an extended fl oor 

speech from Senator Byrd arguing against cloture, the Senate invoked cloture on the substitute, 65–29. The substitute 

amendment was agreed to 73–26, and cloture was invoked on 

the bill, as amended, 83–16. H.R. 5005 passed, as amended, 

90–9. The House agreed to the Senate amendment, and the 

President signed the bill into law. July 31–August 1, September 3–October 1, November 13–19 (22 days).
103

2002—H.R. 5093, Department of the Interior appropriations, forest conservation. The Senate took up the bill by unanimous 

consent and a complete substitute amendment was offered. 

Amendments offered to the substitute included at least two 

that would become sticking points: one to provide funds for 

repaying accounts utilized for emergency wildfi re suppression 

and one to provide emergency disaster assistance to farmers 

suffering from a drought. (Cloture was moved on the latter 

amendment, but was vitiated before the Senate agreed to the 

amendment.) After three additional days of consideration, a 

cloture motion was fi led on the fi re suppression amendment 

but cloture failed, 50–49. The majority leader entered a motion to reconsider that vote. After three further days of debate, 

the Senate again failed to invoke cloture (on reconsideration), 

49–46. A second cloture motion was fi led that same day, but 

failed again, 51–47. Though the leader entered a reconsideration motion on this cloture vote, there was no further action 

on the bill. (Interior appropriations were later enacted as part 

of an omnibus appropriations vehicle.) September 4–5, 10–13, 

17–25 (10 days).

2002—S.J. Res. 45, H.J. Res 114, P.L. 107–243, authorization for 

use of force in Iraq. A motion to proceed to the joint resolution was made and cloture was fi led. Cloture was invoked two 

days later, 95–1; the Senate proceeded to the joint resolution 

by unanimous consent the same day. After two more days of 

consideration, an amendment in the nature of a substitute 

representing a compromise among the White House, House 

leaders and some Senators was offered; cloture was fi led immediately on both this substitute amendment and on the joint 

resolution. Senator Byrd and others prevented leaders from 

considering the resolution on a tight timetable, insisting, for 

example, on a longer debate and on consideration of a wider variety of amendments. In addition, an unusual threat to 

force separate consideration of the preamble of the resolution 

(and thus signifi cantly extend fl oor consideration) forced a 

modifi cation of the substitute amendment. A few amendments 

proposing alternative approaches were offered in subsequent 

days of consideration, but each was defeated, and cloture was 

invoked on the substitute amendment, 75–25; the next day, 

the substitute was agreed to by voice vote. That same day, 

the Senate then agreed by unanimous consent to have several additional hours of debate (controlled, in part, by Senator 

Byrd). After this debate, rather than agree to S.J. Res. 45, 

as amended, the Senate—by unanimous consent—took up the 

House companion (H.J. Res. 114, the language of which was 

nearly identical to the Senate-passed substitute to S.J. Res. 

45) and agreed to it without amendment, 77–23. October 1–11 

(eight days).

2002—S. 565, H.R. 3295, P.L. 107–252, providing federal funding 

for changes to the administration of elections and improving 

voting procedures. Spurred, in part, by voting irregularities 

and recounts in the 2000 election, Congress considered legislation to adopt new requirements on the administration of 

elections and their oversight. The Senate took up S. 565 by 
104

unanimous consent and a complete substitute representing a 

bipartisan compromise proposal was offered. Later that day, 

the Senate adopted the substitute amendment and agreed to 

consider it as original text for the purposes of further amendment. Many amendments were offered and disposed over the 

next fi ve days, but by February 27, the Senate was unable 

to dispose of a controversial pending amendment (on which 

a motion to table failed, 46–51). The amendment proposed a 

change in a provision intended to prevent voter fraud and its 

opponents threatened to fi libuster. A cloture motion was fi led 

that day on the bill, but failed, 49–39. The majority leader 

entered a motion to reconsider that vote, but it also failed, 

51–44. The bill was pulled from the fl oor, and three weeks of 

negotiations produced a March 26 unanimous consent agreement that structured amending, limited debate, and provided 

for a fi nal vote. On April 10, the Senate returned to the bill, 

and amendments were considered and disposed of. The next 

day, the Senate passed the bill, as amended, 99–1. The Senate eventually considered a conference report on the House 

vehicle (H.R. 3295) for two days before agreeing to it, 92–2. 

February 13–15, 26–27, March 1, 4; April 10–11; October 15–

16 (12 days).

2003—Judicial nominations. Over the course of more than a year, 

the Senate held more than a dozen failed cloture votes on six 

nominees to the circuit courts. Miguel Estrada was nominated 

to be a Circuit Judge for the District of Columbia. His was 

the fi rst of several judicial nominations brought to the fl oor in 

2003 despite the expressed intention of minority Senators to 

attempt to block confi rmation. Seven attempts by leadership 

to invoke cloture on the nomination failed over the course 

of fi ve months. Opponents wanted more information on the 

nominee’s legal positions and objected to his failure to provide 

documents from his time working in the Department of Justice. President Bush withdrew the nomination in September. 

March 6–July 30 (33 days).

Priscilla Owen was nominated to be a Circuit Judge for the 

Fifth Circuit. Hers was the second of six judicial nominations 

to be taken up on the fl oor despite minority Senators’ known 

opposition. Opponents asserted that the nominee had a record 

of putting her own views ahead of legal precedent. Leadership 

attempts to invoke cloture failed four different times over the 

course of eight months. The nomination was returned to the 

President upon sine die adjournment of the Congress. April 

7–8, April 29–May 8, July 25–29, November 12–14 (13 days).

William H. Pryor, Jr. was nominated to be a Circuit Judge 

for the Eleventh Circuit. Pryor’s was the third of six judicial 

nominations to be called up despite minority Senators’ known 

opposition. Opponents considered the nominee’s views “extreme.” Leadership attempts to invoke cloture failed once in 

July and again in November. Although debate on the nomination was relatively brief on each occasion, more extensive remarks were offered on three other days, when the matter was 

not formally before the Senate. The nomination was returned 
105

to the President upon sine die adjournment of the Congress. 

July 29–November 6 (four days).

The nomination proceedings of three other Circuit Court 

nominees were also halted after failed cloture votes: Carolyn 

B. Kuhl (one withdrawn, one defeated), Charles W. Pickering, 

and Janice Rogers Brown, were each halted after a single cloture vote failed. July 29–31, November 4–6 (four days).

2003—H.R. 6, setting national energy policy. After considering and 

amending the Senate version of an energy bill (S. 14) for 17 

days over the course of the summer of 2003, the majority leader offered a “motion to commit with instructions,” effectively 

proposing a new version of the legislation. He fi led cloture on 

the motion two days before the start of the August recess, citing frustration with the large number of amendments that 

had been fi led and the lack of progress on the bill. The minority then offered to support moving the House-passed bill (H.R. 

6) to conference by substituting the language of a version that 

had passed 88–11 when they were in the majority, in 2002. 

The majority leadership accepted this offer (and the cloture 

motion was withdrawn) with the expectation of rewriting the 

text in conference, and the bill gained temporary momentum. 

Opponents of the resulting conference report, however, objected to subsidies and tax benefi ts granted for fossil fuels, a temporary continuation of production of the fuel additive MTBE 

(methyl tertiary butyl ether), which competed with ethanol 

and was found to pollute groundwater, and a waiver of liability for MTBE producers. After a bipartisan group of Senators 

debated the conference report, threatened a Budget Act point 

of order, and defeated a cloture motion, the leadership terminated consideration. July 31, November 19–21 (four days).

2004—H.R. 2673, consolidated appropriations. At the close of the 

fi rst session of the 108th Congress, the House approved the 

conference report accompanying the bill. The Senate majority 

leader hoped to dispose of the conference report the next day 

by unanimous consent, but the minority leader objected, citing modifi cations of bipartisan agreements, reversal of Senate 

fl oor decisions, and the inclusion of earmarks. The majority 

leader fi led cloture on the conference report and the Senate 

agreed to vote on it the fi rst day of the second session of the 

108th Congress, approximately six weeks later. The cloture 

motion failed initially by a vote of 48–45, but two days later it 

was successfully reconsidered and agreed to 61–32. The opponents of the conference report reportedly acknowledged they 

were in a weak bargaining position because they wanted to 

avoid a government shut down. January 20–22 (three days).

2004—S. 1637, H.R. 4520, corporate tax bill. During consideration 

of S. 1637, disputes over proposed nongermane, labor-friendly 

amendments and two unsuccessful cloture votes led Senate 

leaders to pull the measure from the fl oor. Senators fi nally 

reached an agreement regarding which amendments would 

be offered, and cloture was invoked on the bill, 90–8. After 

the House passed its version of the legislation that included a 

buyout of tobacco farmers, H.R. 4520, Senators granted unanimous consent to arrange for a conference with the House, 
106

but only after securing a vote adding a provision requiring 

FDA regulation of tobacco products. The conference report on 

H.R. 4520 faced further opposition in October from Senators 

who objected to the exclusion of the provision requiring FDA 

regulation of tobacco products, and from Senator Landrieu, 

who sought the preservation of a National Guard and Reserve 

pay provision, with the Senate taking the unusual step of 

working on a Sunday. These Senators spoke at length on the 

fl oor, requested multiple quorum calls, and objected to many 

unanimous consent requests. Eventually, the majority compromised with invested Senators which involved partial provision of their requests or assurances their interests would be 

addressed in future legislation. March 3–4 and 22–24, April 

5–8, May 3–11, October 8–11 (17 days).

2004—Judicial nominations. The confl ict regarding the nomination 

of federal judges continued from 2003 into 2004, beginning 

with William G. Myers III, and continuing with Henry W. 

Saad, Richard A. Griffi n, and David W. McKeague. Minority 

opponents cited the nominees’ ideological stances or administration track records as a basis for their objection. Each 

nomination was the object of a failed cloture vote and all were 

returned to the President upon adjournment of Congress. Myers: July 16, 20 (2 days); Saad: July 20–22 (3 days); Griffi n: 

July 21–22 (2 days); McKeague: July 21–22 (two days).

2005—Nomination of John R. Bolton as United Nations Ambassador. 

Opponents, who considered the nominee’s style too combative 

and his views on the UN too negative, rejected cloture on the 

nomination on two separate attempts. President Bush later 

gave Ambassador Bolton a recess appointment. May 25–26, 

June 20 (three days).

2005—H.R. 2863, P.L. 109–148, defense appropriations. The Senate 

initially invoked cloture on the bill while adding provisions 

against abuse of U.S. detainees and, despite veto threats, 

shifting funds to emergency hurricane relief. After the conference committee added provisions for oil drilling in the Alaska 

wildlife refuge, however, the Senate rejected cloture on the 

conference report, clearing the measure only after these provisions were dropped. September 29–October 7, December 

19–21 (nine days).

2005–2006—H.R. 8, to end the estate tax. The Senate twice was unable to get to a vote on the proposal. In 2005, the majority 

leader moved to proceed to the bill and fi led cloture on the 

motion, but withdrew both motions when he realized he did 

not have the necessary 60 votes. In 2006, a second attempt 

terminated when the Senate rejected cloture on the motion to 

proceed, 57–41. July 29, September 6, 2005; June 6–8, 2006 

(fi ve days).

2005–2006—S. 147. The bill establishing a governmental structure 

for native Hawaiians was abandoned after two attempts to 

bring it to the fl oor failed. In 2005, one motion for cloture 

on a motion to proceed was withdrawn; in 2006, another was 

defeated after debate on two days. July 29, Sep. 6, 2005; June 

6–8, 2006 (fi ve days).
107

2005–2006—S. 1389, H.R. 3199, P.L. 107–177, reauthorized and 

amended the USA PATRIOT anti-terrorism Act. The Senate 

rejected, 52–47, cloture on the conference report because it 

would have reauthorized controversial portions of the law 

for seven years, three years longer than the Senate-passed 

version of the measure. Instead of re-opening the conference, 

the House and Senate passed separate legislation (S. 2271, 

P.L. 109–178) amending the problematic conference report 

provisions, which cleared the way for Senate passage of the 

conference report. (Supporters of the original reauthorization 

opposed S. 2271, and its consideration lasted six days, but 

the Senate passed it after invoking cloture on the motion to 

consider and the bill itself.) July 29, December 14–16, 2005; 

March 1–2, 2006 (six days).

2006—Nomination of Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to the Supreme Court. 

Opponents of the nominee’s conservative views attempted to 

pursue an extended debate, but the Senate invoked cloture, 

72–25, and confi rmed the nomination, 58–42. January 25–31 

(four days).

2006—S. 852, to establish a $140 billion federal asbestos injury trust 

fund. While cloture on the motion to proceed was invoked, 98–

1, and an effort to tighten eligibility to sue for those claiming 

damages from asbestos was easily rejected, the Senate could 

not agree on the basic outlines of the bill. Consideration was 

suspended after the Senate could not muster the 60 votes 

needed to waive the Budget Act and allow its consideration. 

February 6–14 (six days).

2006—S. 2454, immigration. The introduced bill emphasized enforcement of existing law, while a committee substitute included expanded guest worker programs and paths to legalization for immigrants already in the U.S. After opponents of 

the substitute defeated a motion for cloture on the substitute, 

a compromise version was offered in a motion to recommit, 

but minority Senators still resisted any consent agreement 

that would limit offering amendments to the compromise. As 

a result, the Senate rejected cloture on both the motion to 

recommit and the underlying bill. Later, an agreement to permit amendments and specify conferees made it possible for a 

new version, S. 2611, to be debated for nine more days and 

passed (after cloture was invoked), but the measure did not 

reach conference. March 16–April 7 (10 days).

2006—S. 1955, to facilitate group health coverage for small businesses. Opponents charged that the bill would force employees into insurance with limited coverage. The Senate invoked 

cloture on the motion to consider by 96–2, but rejected cloture 

on the bill itself, 55–43, and the Senate took no further action. 

May 5–11 (four days).

2006—S.J. Res. 1, constitutional amendment defi ning marriage as 

the union of a man and a woman. Action terminated when, on 

the fourth day of debate, the Senate rejected cloture, 49–48, 

on the motion to consider. May 26–June 7 (four days).

2007—S. 1, P.L. 110–81, revising congressional ethics regulations, 

came to the fl oor as a largely bipartisan proposal, but debate became extended when a minority Senator insisted on 
108

his amendment to permit expedited congressional approval of 

proposed presidential rescissions of appropriations. After the 

Senate preserved its right to consider the nongermane amendment by rejecting cloture on the bill, 51–46, an arrangement 

was reached under which the amendment would be offered 

instead to a subsequent minimum wage bill. With several additional amendments, including ones broadening procedural 

barriers against earmarks and other provisions added to bills 

in conference, the Senate passed the bill, 96–2. Jan 9–22, July 

31–August 2 (11 days).

2007—H.R. 2, to raise the minimum wage. The Senate rejected cloture on the House bill, but invoked it, 87–10, on the Senate 

substitute that added tax benefi ts for small business. Both 

before and after cloture, the Senate considered numerous 

amendments, and among the few major proposals adopted 

was one tightening enforcement against employers of illegal 

immigrants. Cloture was also rejected on an amendment enhancing presidential power to rescind appropriations, which 

was ultimately withdrawn. Consideration of the substitute 

concluded only when Senators exhausted the full 30 hours 

available under cloture, which majority Senators viewed as 

an attempt to delay consideration of legislation on Iraq policy. 

Thereafter, however, the Senate quickly agreed to the substitute, invoked cloture on the bill, 88–8, and passed it. (No further action occurred on H.R. 2 because of the constitutional 

diffi culty posed by the Senate’s introduction of the tax provisions into a House measure not addressing revenues. A minimum wage increase and some tax benefi ts were ultimately 

enacted in a supplemental appropriations bill, H.R. 2206, P.L. 

110–28.) January 22–February 1 (nine days).

2007—S. 574, sense of Congress against increased troop levels in 

Iraq. The Senate rejected, three separate times on three different measures, efforts to bring to the fl oor measures disapproving of the President’s plan to increase troops levels in 

Iraq. The various measures represented successive attempts 

to formulate a vehicle acceptable to both sides, but minority 

Senators continued to oppose taking them up in part because, 

they argued, the majority leader planned to restrict their ability to offer amendments in support of continued funding for 

the Iraq war. During four days of consideration, the Senate 

rejected cloture fi rst on a motion to consider S. Con. Res. 2, 

then on one to consider S. 470 (which refl ected the text of S. 

Con. Res. 7). The Senate continued debating the subject on at 

least four additional days with no measure formally pending, 

then took up a motion to consider a new version of the legislation, S. 574. In a Sunday session on its third day of considering this motion, the Senate rejected cloture on this motion as 

well, 56–34. (Further action occurred on S.J. Res. 9, described 

below.) February 15–17 (three days).

2007—H.J. Res. 20, P.L. 110–5, continuing appropriations. To facilitate enactment before existing funding expired, the majority 

leader forestalled fl oor amendments by fi lling the amendment 

tree. Minority party Senators objected, but no unanimous consent agreement to allow specifi ed amendments was reached, 
109

and the leadership urged that such amendments be pursued 

instead on an expected supplemental appropriations bill. 

The Senate invoked cloture on the continuing resolution and 

passed it. February 8–14 (three days).

2007—S.J. Res. 9, Iraq policy. Although opponents criticized the 

resolution for setting a target date to withdraw U.S. forces, 

the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to consider, 89–9. 

An agreement to limit debate on the resolution, however, was 

reached only later, and it also required 60 votes for passage 

of both S.J. Res. 9 and two non-binding measures (S. Res. 107 

and S. Con. Res. 20) opposing a cutoff of funding for forces in 

Iraq. The Senate adopted both non-binding measures, but not 

the joint resolution, 48–50. March 12–15 (three days).

2007—S. 372, intelligence authorization. The Senate easily invoked 

cloture on a motion to consider the bill, 94–3, but after the 

failure of two attempts to forestall numerous expected amendments, including nongermane amendments, by invoking cloture on the bill itself, efforts to pass it were abandoned. April 

10–17 (four days).

2007—S. 1348, on immigration, originally refl ected provisions of the 

bill passed by the Senate in the previous Congress. A cloture 

vote on a motion to consider was twice postponed to permit 

development of a new compromise proposal. Once it was 

ready, the Senate invoked cloture on the motion to consider, 

69–23. The compromise, which was offered as a substitute for 

the complete text of the bill, included legalization for current 

immigrants and retained a guest worker program. The Senate 

considered numerous amendments, and ultimately adopted 

one permitting deportation of immigrants whose legalization 

was denied and another making the guest worker program 

temporary. The leadership then attempted to limit further 

amendment by moving cloture on the substitute (twice) and 

the bill, but the Senate rejected all three motions. Thereafter, 

consideration was suspended, and an agreement to limit the 

offering of further amendments to a specifi ed set was never 

reached on this measure. May 14–June 7 (10 days).

2007—H.R. 6, P.L. 110–140, was comprehensive energy policy legislation. Though the Senate unanimously invoked cloture on 

a motion to consider, opponents of one amendment mandating power from renewable sources and another raising oil and 

gas taxes to fund alternative energy research were able to extend debate until the Senate invoked cloture on the full-text 

substitute that had been offered on the fl oor, 61–32, at which 

point the amendments fell as nongermane. The Senate then 

invoked cloture on the bill, 62–32, and passed it without those 

provisions, but the House later inserted a different version of 

them. The Senate responded by rejecting cloture on a motion 

to agree to the measure in that form, 53–42, as well as on 

a compromise proposal, 59–40. It proved possible to reach a 

vote only on a version that dropped these provisions, which 

went on to enactment. June 6–21, December 7–13 (15 days).

2007—S. 1639, immigration, represented a successor measure to 

S. 1348. The Senate narrowly voted cloture on the motion 

to consider, 64–35, and the majority leader limited amend110

ments by offering a package that was then divided into its 27 

components for voting (which he described as a “clay pigeon” 

procedure). After tabling several components of the amendment, however, the Senate rejected cloture on the bill itself, 

46–53, and it was withdrawn from consideration. June 20–28 

(4 days).

2007—H.R. 1585, defense authorization. The Senate rejected cloture, 52–47, on an amendment requiring withdrawal of U.S. 

forces from Iraq, and Administration supporters prevented 

unanimous consent for immediate votes on other related 

proposals. The leadership then suspended consideration until after the summer recess, when the Senate fi rst rejected 

several Iraq proposals, then precluded further such proposals 

and other nongermane amendments by invoking cloture on 

the bill, 89–6, and the measure quickly passed. (H.R. 1585 

was ultimately vetoed; the defense authorization was enacted 

in P.L. 110–181.) June 27–July 18, September 17–October 1, 

December 14 (21 days).

2007–2008—H.R. 2419, P.L. 110–234, agriculture reauthorization. 

When the majority leader was unable to obtain unanimous 

consent to admit only relevant amendments, he fi lled the 

amendment tree, allowing him to admit only amendments he 

found acceptable. On the fi fth day of consideration, he moved 

for cloture on the complete substitute proposed by the Senate 

committee, as well as on the bill, but Senators whose proposals had been precluded helped to defeat cloture on the substitute, 55–42. Consideration was suspended for two weeks 

until a unanimous consent agreement was reached to put off 

further cloture votes and to permit amendments accepted by 

both party managers, together with a limited number to be 

selected by each side from among those previously fi led, which 

included nongermane proposals. On the fi fth day of consideration under these terms, after rejecting amendments to limit 

farm support payments that had been subjected to a 60-vote 

requirement for passage, the Senate invoked cloture on the 

substitute, 78–12, and passed the bill. November 5–December 

14, 2007; May 14–15, 2008 (16 days).

2007–2008—S. 2248, to reauthorize foreign intelligence surveillance. As reported by the Select Committee on Intelligence, 

the bill included immunity from prosecution for telecommunications fi rms that had cooperated with government surveillance of communications between persons abroad and in the 

United States; opponents preferred the substitute reported by 

the Committee on the Judiciary, which omitted this provision. 

At the close of the fi rst session, the Senate invoked cloture 

on a motion to consider, but opponents secured a postponement by extending post-cloture debate on the motion; they 

also declined consent to limit debate on amendments and require 60 votes for their adoption (an arrangement that would 

have allowed 41 Senators to block adoption without engaging 

in tactics of delay). In January, the Senate tabled the Judiciary Committee substitute, and the leaders of the Intelligence 

Committee offered a new bipartisan substitute (still including 

the immunity provision), on which the minority leader moved 
111

cloture. The Senate rejected cloture, but also defeated an attempt to eliminate the immunity provision. Eventually, the 

possibility of delay was overcome by unanimous consent to a 

limitation on amendments that included 60-vote requirements 

for adoption on four proposals generally limiting the powers 

of the foreign intelligence surveillance court, thereby permitting administration supporters to contest these without having to bring about further delay in the reauthorization. Only 

one of the four amendments attained the required threshold, 

and the Senate then invoked cloture on the bill and passed it. 

(A later version of the bill, H.R. 6304, became P.L. 110–261.) 

December 14, 2007–February 12, 2008 (15 days).

2008—H.R. 3221, P.L. 110–289, energy taxes and mortgage foreclosures. The Senate used the House-passed energy bill as a vehicle for reforming the regulation of housing agencies and for 

funding aid against foreclosures. It fi rst rejected cloture on a 

motion to consider, 48–46, and only several weeks later, after 

supporters dropped a provision permitting bankruptcy judges 

to modify mortgages, did it invoke cloture on the motion, 94–

1, then on the Senate substitute, 92–6, and fi nally adopt the 

substitute and pass the bill. When the House returned the 

measure with amendments, committee leaders offered a new 

Senate substitute for the housing provisions. The Senate rejected a motion to refer the substitute to committee to investigate its fi nancial consequences, then invoked cloture on the 

substitute, 83–9, and adopted it, 79–16. It also invoked cloture 

on, and accepted, a House proposal to strike out Senate provisions extending energy tax benefi ts without offsetting revenue 

increases, despite efforts by supporters of the tax benefi ts to 

force cloture on all remaining amendments and use all postcloture time unless the benefi ts were restored, 76–10. After 

invoking cloture on, and accepting, a motion to disagree with 

the House version of tax credits for homeowners, 80–13, the 

Senate sent the measure back to the House, which accepted 

the Senate changes. February 14–April 10, June 19–July 11, 

23–26 (26 days).

2008—S. 3036 to cap and tax greenhouse gas emissions. The Senate invoked cloture on the motion to take up the bill, 74–14, 

but minority party leadership insisted on the full reading of 

the substitute amendment to protest slow action on judicial 

nominations, and objected to a proposed unanimous consent 

agreement placing strict limits on the number of amendments 

to be offered. When cloture on the substitute failed, 48–36, 

the leadership terminated consideration. May 22–June 6 (fi ve 

days).

2008—S. 3044, oil windfall profi ts. Opponents raised objections to 

provisions repealing tax benefi ts for oil companies and taxing windfall profi ts to fi nance renewable energy, and the Senate debated motions to consider the measure for several days, 

both before and after rejecting cloture on such a motion, 51–

43. June 4–11 (six days).

2008—H.R. 6049, extension of energy tax benefi ts. Opponents objected to provisions, included in the Senate committee version, 

raising revenue to offset the tax benefi ts, and the Senate re112

jected cloture on a motion to consider twice in June and once 

again in July. In July (when the Senate also rejected cloture 

on a motion to consider a similar free-standing Senate bill, S. 

3335, offered by the Chairman of the Finance Committee), the 

action also refl ected some Senators’ protest against the inability to offer amendments encouraging oil drilling to S. 3268. 

In September, however, under a consent agreement requiring 

60 votes for each amendment, the Senate agreed to energy 

tax benefi ts with revenue offsets, rejected relief from the alternative minimum tax (AMT) with full offsets, and agreed 

to AMT relief and additional tax benefi ts with partial offsets. 

The Senate then passed the measure, but Congress took no 

further action on this vehicle. June 6–19, July 29, September 

17–23 (11 days).

2008—S. 3268, energy futures trading. Although the Senate invoked 

cloture on the motion to consider, 94–0, supporters of expanded oil drilling rejected cloture on the bill, 50–43, in order to 

preserve their opportunity to offer amendments on that subject. The leadership, instead, withdrew the bill from consideration. July 17–25 (fi ve days).

2008—S. 3001, P.L. 110–417, defense authorization. Some minority 

party Senators strove to attach amendments for expanded 

offshore oil drilling and other energy proposals, and others 

pressed to strike language declaring “earmarked” spending 

provisions in the committee report on the bill to be legally 

binding. This language had been included in response to a 

presidential directive that agencies ignore “earmarks” set 

forth only in the report. Supporters of the energy proposals 

initially blocked an attempt to bring the bill up under conditions that would have excluded nongermane amendments, 

defeating cloture on a motion to consider, 51–39, but after 

the August recess they dropped their objections, and the Senate took up the bill after reconsidering and invoking cloture, 

83–0. Earmark opponents sought an opportunity to offer their 

amendment by forestalling fi nal action on the bill, but the 

Senate was able to dispose of numerous other amendments. 

Finally, as the end of the session approached, the Senate invoked cloture on the bill, 61–32, abandoned many remaining amendments, including ones accepted by both sides, and 

passed the measure, 88–8. When earmark opponents continued their efforts by objecting to a House-Senate conference 

on the bill, a fi nal version was instead negotiated by leaders 

of the two defense committees. This version, which included 

many of the abandoned amendments and omitted several provisions over which the President had threatened a veto, was 

quickly accepted by both chambers, with the Senate acting in 

a Saturday session. July 30–September 17, September 27 (12 

days).
(113)

DISPOSITION OF CLOTURE MOTIONS, 1917–2008

The following table displays information about Senate action on 

each cloture motion fi led from the adoption of the initial cloture rule 

in 1917 through the end of the 110th Congress in 2008, including 

motions that never reached a vote. The date in the fi rst column of 

the table is that on which the cloture motion was fi led; the date under “Action and Result” is that of the vote or other fi nal action on the 

motion, as explained further below.

For legislative business, the “Measure” column gives the measure 

number of the bill or resolution under consideration, and the “Subject” column identifi es the overall subject of the measure in question. For executive business, the “Measure” column carries the notation “Nomination” or “Treaty,” and the “Subject” column identifi es 

the specifi c nomination or treaty.

The “Subject” column also provides two additional items of information. First, cloture may be moved not only on an item of business, 

but also on any debatable question arising in connection with its 

consideration. Among these questions, those on which cloture has 

most often been sought are (1) motions to proceed to consider a measure; (2) amendments to the measure, including full substitutes for 

the entire text of the measure; and (3) conference reports or other 

questions related to the resolution of differences between the chambers. When cloture is moved on any question other than the item of 

business itself, the entry in the “Subject” column also identifi es the 

specifi c question. 

Second, if a cloture motion is defeated, any Senator may enter a 

motion to reconsider the vote; if such a motion is entered, the Senate may later vote a second time on the same cloture motion. In 

these cases, the entry under “Subject” includes a notation that the 

vote was reconsidered, and the entries in the columns under “Action 

and Result” display the dates, the tallies, the vote numbers, and the 

disposition reached, for each of the two votes. The “Motion Filed By” 

column displays the name of the Senator who fi led the motion for 

cloture. 

Under “Action and Result,” the “Date” column provides the date 

on which the Senate disposed of each cloture motion. For cloture 

motions on which the Senate voted, the date shown is the date of 

the vote. When no vote occurred, the date shown is that on which 

the motion was withdrawn, vitiated, or simply became moot, with no 

other disposition occurring, because it was superseded by other action. If no specifi c date could be assigned on which a motion became 

moot, no entry appears in this column.

For the cloture motions on which the Senate voted, the “Vote and 

Vote Number” column gives the tally of the vote (ayes, then nays) 

and, where available, the Senate’s reference number of the vote. 

For cloture motions that were withdrawn or vitiated by unanimous 

consent, it displays the entry “UC.” For cloture motions that were 
114

withdrawn or vitiated by action of an individual Senator, and for 

those that became moot with no other disposition occurring or were 

superseded, the entry displayed is “no vote.” 

The last column under “Action and Result,” headed “Result,” displays a code for the specifi c disposition the Senate made of each 

cloture motion. The key to these codes is:

I—Senate invoked cloture.

F—Senate failed to invoke cloture.

W—No vote occurred because the cloture motion was withdrawn.

V—No vote occurred because action pursuant to the cloture motion was vitiated.

N—No vote occurred because the cloture motion became moot or 

was superseded by other action.

The Congressional Record columns refer to the volume and page 

number in the Record on which the Senate’s vote on the cloture motion is found; for cloture motions that received no vote, the column 

is blank. For years for which the permanent, bound edition of the 

Record is available, the entries refer to this edition; otherwise, the 

reference is to the daily edition. Page citations to the daily edition 

are preceded by the letter “S” (indicating the Senate pages of the 

Record). This information, as well as the vote numbers, is provided 

as an aid to further research.
115

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

65th

July 9, 1917 ........ H.R.4961 ............ National security food and fuel supply........................ Chamberlain.................. July 10, 1917 ..... UC W 55 4838 

Aug. 29, 1917 ...... H.R.4289 ............ War revenue.................................................................. Simmons........................ Aug. 30, 1917 ..... UC W 55 6436 

66th

Nov. 13, 1919 ...... S.139 .................. Versailles Treaty........................................................... Hitchcock....................... Nov. 15, 1919 ..... 78–16 I 58 8555 Jan. 31, 1921 ...... H.R.15275 .......... Emergency Tariff bill.................................................... Penrose.......................... Feb. 2, 1921 ....... 36–35 F 60 2432 

67th

July 5, 1922 ........ H.R.7456 ............ Tariff bill........................................................................ McCumber..................... July 7, 1922 ....... 45–35 F 62 10040 

69th

Jan. 22, 1926 ...... S.Res.5 ............... World Court Protocol ..................................................... Lenroot ........................... Jan. 25, 1926 ..... 68–26 I 67 2678 

May 28, 1926 ...... S.2607 ................ Migratory Bird Refuges................................................ Norbeck.......................... June 1, 1926 ...... 46–33 F 67 10392 

Feb. 12, 1927 ...... H.R.2 .................. Branch Banking Act...................................................... Pepper............................ Feb. 15, 1927 ..... 65–18 I 68 3824 

Feb. 24, 1927 ...... S.3331 ................ Colorado River Dam...................................................... Johnson.......................... Feb. 26, 1927 ..... 32–59 F 68 4900 

Feb. 24, 1927 ...... S.3027 ................ Disabled Offi cers........................................................... Tyson.............................. Feb. 26, 1927 ..... 51–36 F 68 4901 

Feb. 25, 1927 ...... S.4463 ................ D.C. Buildings............................................................... Lenroot ........................... Feb. 28, 1927 ..... 52–31 F 68 4985 

Feb. 26, 1927 ...... H.R.10729 .......... Prohibition Bureau....................................................... Jones.............................. Feb. 28, 1927 ..... 55–27 I 68 4986 

70th

Mar. 1, 1929 ........ H.R.15430 .......... Federal Radio Commission........................................... Watson........................... Mar. 1, 1929 ....... no vote N 70 4885 

71st

June 24, 1930 ..... H.R.12902 .......... Defi ciency Appropriations ............................................. Jones.............................. June 25, 1930 .... UC W 72 11693 

72nd

Jan. 17, 1933 ...... S.4412 ................ Branch Banking Act...................................................... Robinson........................ Jan. 19, 1933 ..... 58–30 F 76 2077 

Feb. 14, 1933 ...... S.J.Res.211 ........ Constitutional Amendment to Repeal Prohibition...... 

motion to proceed Bingham........................ Feb. 16, 1933 ..... no vote W 76 4211 

75th

Jan. 25, 1938 ...... H.R.1507 ............ Anti-lynching Bill.......................................................... Neely.............................. Jan. 27, 1938 ..... 37–51 F 83 1166 

Feb. 14, 1938 ...... H.R.1507 ............ Anti-lynching Bill.......................................................... Wagner........................... Feb. 16, 1938 ..... 42–46 F 83 2007 

77th

Nov. 20, 1942 ...... H.R.1024 ............ Anti-poll-tax legislation................................................ Barkley.......................... Nov. 23, 1942 ..... 37–41 F 88 9065 
116

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

78th

May 11, 1944 ...... H.R.7 .................. Anti-poll-tax legislation................................................ Barkley.......................... May 15, 1944 ..... 36–44 F 90 4470 

79th

June 29, 1945 ..... H.R.3368 ............ War Agencies Appropriations, FY45............................ Taft................................. June 30, 1945 .... no vote N 91 7068 

Feb. 7, 1946 ........ S.101 .................. Fair Employment Practices Commission ..................... Barkley.......................... Feb. 9, 1946 ....... 48–36 F 92 1219 

Mar. 23, 1946 ...... H.R.4908 ............ Mediation of Labor Disputes........................................ Knowland ....................... May 25, 1946 ..... 3–77 F 92 5714 

May 4, 1946 ........ S.J.Res.138 ........ Loan to Great Britian................................................... Ball................................. May 7, 1946 ....... 41–41 F 92 4539 

June 27, 1946 ..... H.R.6042 ............ Amend the Emergency Price Control Act and the 

Stabilization Act 

conference report Barkley.......................... June 28, 1946 .... UC W 92 7871 

July 29, 1946 ...... H.R.7 .................. Anti-poll-tax legislation................................................ Barkley.......................... July 31, 1946 ..... 39–33 F 92 10512 

81st

May 17, 1950 ...... S.1728 ................ Fair Employment Practices.......................................... Lucas.............................. May 19, 1950 ..... 52–32 F 96 7299 

July 10, 1950 ...... S.1728 ................ Fair Employment Practices.......................................... Lucas.............................. July 12, 1950 ..... 55–33 F 96 9982 

83rd

July 23, 1954 ...... S.3690 ................ Atomic Energy Act Amendments................................. Knowland ....................... July 26, 1954 ..... 44–42 F 100 11942 

86th

Mar. 8, 1960 ........ H.R.8315 ............ Civil Rights bill............................................................. Douglas.......................... Mar. 10, 1960 ..... 42–53 No. 112 F 106 5118 

87th

Sept. 16, 1961 ..... S.Res.4 ............... Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Sept. 19, 1961 .... 37–43 No. 209 F 107 20147 

May 7, 1962 ........ H.R.1361 ............ Literacy Tests................................................................ 

Mansfi eld substitute amendment Mansfi eld....................... May 9, 1962 ....... 43–53 No. 48 F 108 8058 

May 9, 1962 ........ H.R.1361 ............ Literacy Tests................................................................ 

Mansfi eld substitute amendment Mansfi eld....................... May 14, 1962 ..... 42–52 No. 51 F 108 8294 

Aug. 11, 1962 ...... H.R.11040 .......... Communications Satellite............................................ Mansfi eld....................... Aug. 14, 1962 ..... 63–27 No. 162 I 108 16431 

88th

Feb. 5, 1963 ........ S.Res.9 ............... Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Feb. 7, 1963 ....... 54–42 No. 22 F 109 2058 

June 6, 1964 ....... H.R.7152 ............ Civil Rights bill............................................................. Mansfi eld....................... June 6, 1964 ...... UC W 110 12861 

June 8, 1964 ....... H.R.7152 ............ Civil Rights bill............................................................. Mansfi eld....................... June 10, 1964 .... 71–29 No. 281 I 110 13327 

Sept. 8, 1964 ....... H.R.11380 .......... Legislative Reapportionment Amendment.................. Dirksen.......................... Sept. 10, 1964 .... 30–63 No. 564 F 110 21896 

89th

May 21, 1965 ...... S.1564 ................ Voting Rights bill ........................................................... Hart ................................ May 25, 1965 ..... 70–30 No. 85 I 111 11466 
117

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Oct. 8, 1965 ......... H.R.77 ................ Right-to-work repeal..................................................... 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Oct. 11, 1965 ...... 45–47 No. 287 F 111 26581 

Feb. 4, 1966 ........ H.R.77 ................ Right-to-work repeal..................................................... 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Feb. 8, 1966 ....... 51–48 No. 31 F 112 2512 

Feb. 8, 1966 ........ H.R.77 ................ Right-to-work repeal..................................................... 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Feb. 10, 1966 ..... 50–49 No. 34 F 112 2864 

Sept. 12, 1966 ..... H.R.14765 .......... Civil Rights bill............................................................. 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Sept. 14, 1966 .... 54–42 No. 254 F 112 22670 

Sept. 15, 1966 ..... H.R.14765 .......... Civil Rights bill............................................................. 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Sept. 19, 1966 .... 52–41 No. 256 F 112 23042 

Oct. 7, 1966 ......... H.R.14644 .......... Higher Education Amendments of 1966...................... 

D.C. Home Rule amendment Mansfi eld....................... Oct. 10, 1966 ...... 41–37 No. 293 F 112 25878 

90th

Jan. 19, 1967 ...... S.Res.6 ............... Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Jan. 24, 1967 ..... 53–46 No. 7 F 113 1336 

Feb. 16, 1968 ...... H.R.2516 ............ Open Housing................................................................ Mansfi eld....................... Feb. 20, 1968 ..... 55–37 No. 7 F 114 3427 

Feb. 21, 1968 ...... H.R.2516 ............ Open Housing................................................................ Mansfi eld....................... Feb. 26, 1968 ..... 56–36 No. 10 F 114 4064 

Feb. 28, 1968 ...... H.R.2516 ............ Open Housing................................................................ 

S.Amdt.554 Dirksen.......................... Mar. 1, 1968 ....... 59–35 No. 14 F 114 4845 

Mar. 1, 1968 ........ H.R.2516 ............ Open Housing................................................................ 

S.Amdt.554 Mansfi eld....................... Mar. 4, 1968 ....... 65–32 No. 16 I 114 4960 

Sept. 27, 1968 ..... Nomination ........ Judicial nominee Abe Fortas........................................ 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Oct. 1, 1968 ........ 45–43 No. 300 F 114 28933 

91st

Jan. 14, 1969 ...... S.Res.11 ............. Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Church........................... Jan. 16, 1969 ..... 51–47 No. 7 F 115 994 

Jan. 24, 1969 ...... S.Res.11 ............. Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Church........................... Jan. 28, 1969 ..... 50–42 No. 15 F 115 1937 

Sept. 15, 1970 ..... S.J.Res.1 ............ Abolishing the Electoral College.................................. Mansfi eld....................... Sept. 17, 1970 .... 54–36 No. 306 F 116 32357 

Sept. 25, 1970 ..... S.J.Res.1 ............ Abolishing the Electoral College.................................. Mansfi eld....................... Sept. 29, 1970 .... 53–34 No. 334 F 116 34034 

Oct. 2, 1970 ......... S.J.Res.1 ............ Abolishing the Electoral College.................................. Mansfi eld....................... Oct. 5, 1970 ........ UC W 116 34937 

Dec. 17, 1970 ...... H.R.17755 .......... Supersonic Transport Funds........................................ 

conference report Scott............................... Dec. 19, 1970 ..... 43–48 No. 439 F 116 42712 

Dec. 19, 1970 ...... H.R.17755 .......... Supersonic Transport Funds........................................ 

conference report Scott............................... Dec. 22, 1970 ..... 42–44 No. 443 F 116 43176 

92nd

Feb. 11, 1971....... S.Res.9 ............... Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Pearson.......................... Feb. 18, 1971 ..... 48–37 No. 6 F 117 3014 

Feb. 19, 1971 ...... S.Res.9 ............... Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Church........................... Feb. 23, 1971 ..... 50–36 No. 8 F 117 3623 

Feb. 26, 1971 ...... S.Res.9 ............... Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Church........................... Mar. 2, 1971 ....... 48–36 No. 13 F 117 4566 

Mar. 5, 1971 ........ S.Res.9 ............... Amending the Cloture Rule.......................................... 

motion to proceed Pearson.......................... Mar. 9, 1971 ....... 55–39 No. 15 F 117 5485 

June 21, 1971 ..... H.R.6531 ............ Military Draft Extension.............................................. Mansfi eld....................... June 23, 1971 .... 65–27 No. 119 I 117 21584 

July 23, 1971 ...... S.2308 ................ Lockheed Loan Guarantee ............................................ Tower............................. July 26, 1971 ..... 42–47 No. 163 F 117 27154 
118

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

July 26, 1971 ...... S.2308 ................ Lockheed Loan Guarantee ............................................ Tower............................. July 28, 1971 ..... 59–39 No. 171 F 117 27585 

July 28, 1971 ...... S.2308 ................ Lockheed Loan Guarantee ............................................ Tower............................. July 30, 1971 ..... 53–37 No. 178 F 117 28185 

July 30, 1971 ...... S.2308 ................ Lockheed Loan Guarantee ............................................ Tower............................. July 31, 1971 ..... UC W 117 28185 

Sept. 17, 1971 ..... H.R.6531 ............ Military Draft Extension.............................................. 

conference report Stennis........................... Sept. 21, 1971 .... 61–30 No. 227 I 117 32657 

Dec. 8, 1971 ........ nomination......... Judicial nominee William H. Rehnquist...................... Scott............................... Dec. 10, 1971 ..... 52–42 No. 446 F 117 46117 

Dec. 9, 1971 ........ nomination......... Judicial nominee William H. Rehnquist...................... Scott............................... Dec. 10, 1971 ..... no vote N 117 46121 

Dec. 15, 1971 ...... H.J.Res.1005...... Continuing Appropriations FY72................................. Griffi n............................ Dec. 17, 1971 ..... no vote N 117 47584 

Jan. 28, 1972 ...... S.2515 ................ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission............ Williams......................... Feb. 1, 1972 ....... 48–37 No. 25 F 118 1972 

Feb. 1, 1972 ........ S.2515 ................ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission............ Williams......................... Feb. 3, 1972 ....... 53–35 No. 30 F 118 2494 

Feb. 18, 1972 ...... S.2515 ................ Equal Employment Opportunity Commission............ Williams......................... Feb. 22, 1972 ..... 73–21 No. 52 I 118 4912 

Sept. 12, 1972 ..... S.J.Res.241 ........ U.S.-Soviet Arms Control Pact..................................... Mansfi eld....................... Sept. 14, 1972 .... 76–15 No. 427 I 118 30622 

Sept. 13, 1972 ..... S.J.Res.241 ........ U.S.-Soviet Arms Control Pact..................................... Scott............................... Sept. 14, 1972 .... UC W 118 28185 

Sept. 27, 1972 ..... S.3970 ................ Consumer Protection Agency ........................................ Byrd............................... Sept. 29, 1972 .... 47–29 No. 483 F 118 32895 

Sept. 30, 1972 ..... S.3970 ................ Consumer Protection Agency ........................................ Javits............................. Oct. 3, 1972 ........ 55–32 No. 498 F 118 33401 

Oct. 3, 1972 ......... S.3970 ................ Consumer Protection Agency ........................................ Byrd............................... Oct. 5, 1972 ........ 52–30 No. 522 F 118 33865 

Oct. 6, 1972 ......... H.R.13915 .......... Anti-School-Busing bill................................................. Mansfi eld....................... Oct. 10, 1972 ...... 45–37 No. 539 F 118 34504 

Oct. 9, 1972 ......... H.R.13915 .......... Anti-School-Busing bill................................................. Mansfi eld....................... Oct. 11, 1972 ...... 49–39 No. 541 F 118 34788 

Oct. 10, 1972 ....... H.R.13915 .......... Anti-School-Busing bill................................................. Mansfi eld....................... Oct. 12, 1972 ...... 49–38 No. 543 F 118 35330 

93rd

Apr. 17, 1973 ....... S.352 .................. Voter Registration Act ................................................... Allen............................... Apr. 30, 1973 ...... 56–31 No. 109 F 119 13546 

May 1, 1973 ........ S.352 .................. Voter Registration Act ................................................... Mansfi eld....................... May 3, 1973 ....... 60–34 No. 116 F 119 14095 

May 7, 1973 ........ S.352 .................. Voter Registration Act ................................................... Mansfi eld....................... May 9, 1973 ....... 67–32 No. 126 I 119 14868 

Nov. 30, 1973 ...... H.R.11104 .......... Public Debt Limit-Campaign Finance......................... 

motion to insist on Senate amendments Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 2, 1973 ....... 47–33 No. 545 F 119 39085 

Dec. 1, 1973 ........ H.R.11104 .......... Public Debt Limit-Campaign Finance......................... 

motion to insist on Senate amendments Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 3, 1973 ....... 49–39 No. 549 F 119 39166 

Dec. 2, 1973 ........ H.R.11104 .......... Public Debt Limit-Campaign Finance......................... 

motion to insist on Senate amendments Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 3, 1973 ....... UC W 119 39179 

Dec. 2, 1973 ........ H.R.11104 .......... Public Debt Limit-Campaign Finance......................... 

motion to insist on Senate amendments Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 3, 1973 ....... UC W 119 39179 

Dec. 7, 1973 ........ S.1868 ................ Importation of Rhodesian Chrome Ore........................ Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 13, 1973 ..... 62–33 No. 577 F 119 41458 

Dec. 7, 1973 ........ S.1868 ................ Importation of Rhodesian Chrome Ore........................ Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 11, 1973 ...... 59–35 No. 570 F 119 40708 

Dec. 11, 1973 ....... S.2686 ................ Legal Services Corporation Act.................................... Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 13, 1973 ..... 60–36 No. 578 F 119 41464 

Dec. 12, 1973 ...... S.2686 ................ Legal Services Corporation Act.................................... Taft................................. Dec. 14, 1973 ..... 56–29 No. 583 F 119 41636 

Dec. 14, 1973 ...... S.1868 ................ Importation of Rhodesian Chrome Ore........................ Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 18, 1973 ..... 63–26 No. 593 I 119 42113 

Jan. 28, 1974 ...... S.2686 ................ Legal Services Corporation Act.................................... Scott............................... Jan. 30, 1974 ..... 68–29 No. 17 I 120 1382 

Jan. 29, 1974 ...... S.2686 ................ Legal Services Corporation Act.................................... Taft................................. Jan. 30, 1974 ..... UC V 120 1383 

Feb. 1, 1974 ........ Treaty ................. Genocide Treaty............................................................ Church........................... Feb. 5, 1974 ....... 55–36 No. 32 F 120 2187 

Feb. 4, 1974 ........ Treaty ................. Genocide Treaty............................................................ Church........................... Feb. 6, 1974 ....... 55–38 No. 33 F 120 2339 

Mar. 1, 1974 ........ S.Res.293 ........... Government Salary Increases...................................... Mansfi eld....................... Mar. 6, 1974 ....... 67–31 No. 54 I 120 5492 

Mar. 5, 1974 ........ S.Res.293 ........... Government Salary Increases...................................... Mansfi eld....................... Mar. 6, 1974 ....... no vote N 120 5507 
119

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Apr. 2, 1974 ......... S.3044 ................ Federal Election Campaign Financing........................ Mansfi eld....................... Apr. 4, 1974 ........ 60–36 No. 115 F 120 9781 

Apr. 5, 1974 ......... S.3044 ................ Federal Election Campaign Financing........................ Mansfi eld....................... Apr. 9, 1974 ........ 64–30 No. 127 I 120 10354 

June 18, 1974 ..... H.R.14832 .......... Public Debt Limit.......................................................... Bennett.......................... June 19, 1974 .... 45–48 No. 264 F 120 20105 

June 18, 1974 ..... H.R.14832 .......... Public Debt Limt........................................................... 

S.Amdt.1460 Mansfi eld....................... June 19, 1974 .... 50–43 No. 263 F 120 20104 

June 24, 1974 ..... H.R.14832 .......... Public Debt Limit.......................................................... 

S.Amdt.1522 Mansfi eld....................... June 26, 1974 .... 48–50 No. 279 F 120 21195 

June 25, 1974 ..... H.R.14832 .......... Public Debt Limit.......................................................... Griffi n............................ June 26, 1974 .... no vote N 120 21207 

July 10, 1974 ...... H.R.7824 ............ Legal Services Corporation ........................................... 

motion that Senate further insist on its amendments 

Mansfi eld....................... July 11, 1974 ..... UC V 120 22878 

July 16, 1974 ...... H.R.7824 ............ Legal Services Corporation ........................................... 

motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendments 

Taft................................. July 17, 1974 ..... UC V 120 23855 

July 25, 1974 ...... S.707 .................. Consumer Protection Act.............................................. Ribicoff........................... July 30, 1974 ..... 56–42 No. 336 F 120 25876 

July 30, 1974 ...... S.707 .................. Consumer Protection Act.............................................. Ribicoff........................... Aug. 1, 1974 ....... 59–39 No. 345 F 120 26327 

Aug. 15, 1974 ...... S.707 .................. Consumer Protection Act.............................................. Ribicoff........................... Aug. 20, 1974 ..... 59–35 No. 371 F 120 29163 

Sept. 17, 1974 ..... S.707 .................. Consumer Protection Act.............................................. Cranston........................ Sept. 19, 1974 .... 64–34 No. 415 F 120 31904 

Nov. 26, 1974 ...... H.R.15977 .......... Export Import Bank...................................................... 

conference report Packwood....................... Dec. 3, 1974 ....... 51–39 No. 512 F 120 37819 

Dec. 2, 1974 ........ H.R.15977 .......... Export Import Bank...................................................... 

conference report Packwood....................... Dec. 4, 1974 ....... 48–44 No. 515 F 120 38070 

Dec. 3, 1974 ........ H.R.15977 .......... Export Import Bank...................................................... 

conference report Mansfi eld....................... Dec. 4, 1974 ....... no vote N 120 38071 

Dec. 5, 1974 ........ H.R.14449 .......... Headstart, Economic Opportunity and Community 

Partnership Act 

Byrd............................... Dec. 10, 1974 ..... no vote V 120 38966 

Dec. 11, 1974 ....... H.R.16900 .......... Supplemental Approprations FY75 .............................. 

 S.Amdt.2024 Byrd............................... Dec. 14, 1974 ..... 56–27 No. 540 I 120 39904 

Dec. 11, 1974 ....... H.R.10710 .......... Trade Reform Act.......................................................... Byrd............................... Dec. 13, 1974 ..... 71–19 No. 532 I 120 39768 

Dec. 12, 1974 ...... H.R.15977 .......... Export Import Bank...................................................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Dec. 14, 1974 ..... 49–35 No. 543 F 120 39909 

Dec. 12, 1974 ...... H.R.16900 .......... Supplemental Appropriations FY75............................ 

S.Amdt.2024 Scott............................... Dec. 14, 1974 ..... no vote N 120 39905 

Dec. 12, 1974 ...... H.R.10710 .......... Trade Reform Act.......................................................... Byrd............................... Dec. 13, 1974 ..... UC V 120 39769 

Dec. 13, 1974 ...... H.R.16900 .......... Supplemental Appropriations FY75............................ 

S.Amdt.2024 Byrd............................... Dec. 14, 1974 ..... no vote N 120 40067 

Dec. 13, 1974 ...... H.R.15977 .......... Export Import Bank...................................................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Dec. 16, 1974 ..... 54–34 No. 546 F 120 40058 

Dec. 14, 1974 ...... H.R.17045 .......... Social Service Amendments .......................................... Long............................... Dec. 17, 1974 ..... 70–23 No. 559 I 120 40330 

Dec. 14, 1974 ...... H.R.421 .............. Tariff Schedules ............................................................. Long............................... Dec. 17, 1974 ..... 67–25 No. 561 I 120 40330 

Dec. 14, 1974 ...... H.R.15977 .......... Export Import Bank...................................................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Dec. 16, 1974 ..... no vote N 120 40066 

94th

Feb. 24, 1975 ...... S.281 .................. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Amendments......... Hartke ............................ Feb. 26, 1975 ..... 86–8 No. 26 I 121 4352 

Feb. 25, 1975 ...... S.281 .................. Regional Rail Reorganization Act Amendments......... Byrd............................... Feb. 26, 1975 ..... UC V 121 4369 

Mar. 3, 1975 ........ S.Res.4 ............... Amend Cloture Rule..................................................... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Mar. 5, 1975 ....... 73–21 No. 42 I 121 5252 

Mar. 5, 1975 ........ S.Res.4 ............... Amend Cloture Rule..................................................... Byrd............................... Mar. 7, 1975 ....... 73–21 No. 45 I 121 5612 
120

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Mar. 6, 1975 ........ S.Res.4 ............... Amend Cloture Rule..................................................... Byrd............................... Mar. 7, 1975 ....... UC V 121 5652 

Mar. 18, 1975 ...... H.R.2166 ............ Tax Reduction Act......................................................... Hollings .......................... Mar. 20, 1975 ..... 59–38 No. 81 F 121 7755 

Mar. 19, 1975 ...... H.R.2166 ............ Tax Reduction Act......................................................... Mansfi eld....................... Mar. 21, 1975 ..... 83–13 No. 100 I 121 8020 

May 8, 1975 ........ S.200 .................. Consumer Protection Act ............................................. Packwood....................... May 13, 1975 ..... 71–27 No. 171 I 121 14055 

June 10, 1975 ..... S.Res.60 ............. Senate Committee Staffi ng ........................................... Byrd............................... June 11, 1975 ..... 77–19 No. 222 I 121 18381 June 21, 1975 ..... S.Res.166 ........... Contested Election of New Hampshire Senator.......... Byrd............................... June 24, 1975 .... 57–39 No. 249 F 121 20531 

June 23, 1975 ..... S.Res.166 ........... Contested Election of New Hampshire Senator.......... Byrd............................... June 25, 1975 .... 56–41 No. 251 F 121 20720 

June 24, 1975 ..... S.Res.166 ........... Contested Election of New Hampshire Senator.......... Byrd............................... June 26, 1975 .... 54–40 No. 254 F 121 21045 

June 25, 1975 ..... S.Res.166 ........... Contested Election of New Hampshire Senator.......... Byrd............................... June 26, 1975 .... no vote W 121 21187 

June 26, 1975 ..... S.Res.166 ........... Contested Election of New Hampshire Senator.......... Byrd............................... July 8, 1975 ....... 57–38 No. 261 F 121 21433 

July 7, 1975 ........ S.Res.166 ........... Contested Election of New Hampshire Senator.......... Byrd............................... July 9, 1975 ....... 57–38 No. 268 F 121 21815 

July 8, 1975 ........ S.Res.166 ........... Contested Election of New Hampshire Senator.......... Byrd............................... July 10, 1975 ..... 55–38 No. 270 F 121 22177 

July 18, 1975 ...... H.R.6219 ............ Voting Rights Act Extension......................................... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... July 21, 1975 ..... 72–19 No. 303 I 121 23738 

July 19, 1975 ...... H.R.6219 ............ Voting Rights Act Extension......................................... 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... July 21, 1975 ..... no vote N 121 23738 

July 21, 1975 ...... H.R.6219 ............ Voting Rights Act Extension......................................... Mansfi eld....................... July 23, 1975 ..... 76–20 No. 310 I 121 24211 

July 22, 1975 ...... H.R.6219 ............ Voting Rights Act Extension......................................... Mansfi eld....................... July 23, 1975 ..... UC V 121 24251 

July 28, 1975 ...... S.Res.145 ........... Oil Price Ceiling............................................................ Byrd............................... July 30, 1975 ..... 54–38 No. 355 F 121 26004 

Sept. 19, 1975 ..... H.R.8069 ............ Labor, HEW Appropriations, FY76.............................. Brooke............................ Sept. 23, 1975 .... 46–48 No. 410 F 121 29812 

Sept. 22, 1975 ..... H.R.8069 ............ Labor, HEW Appropriations, FY76.............................. Brooke............................ Sept. 24, 1975 .... 64–33 No. 412 I 121 30045 

Sept. 23, 1975 ..... H.R.8069 ............ Labor, HEW Appropriations, FY76.............................. Brooke............................ Sept. 24, 1975 .... UC V 121 30052 

Nov. 6, 1975 ........ H.R.5900 ............ Common Site Picketing................................................ 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Nov. 11, 1975 ..... 66–30 No. 476 I 121 35916 

Nov. 10, 1975 ...... H.R.5900 ............ Common Site Picketing................................................ 

motion to proceed Mansfi eld....................... Nov. 11, 1975 ..... no vote N 121 35916 

Nov. 11, 1975 ...... H.R.5900 ............ Common Site Picketing................................................ Byrd............................... Nov. 14, 1975 ..... 58–31 No. 486 F 121 36748 

Nov. 14, 1975 ...... H.R.5900 ............ Common Site Picketing................................................ Mansfi eld....................... Nov. 18, 1975 ..... 62–37 No. 500 I 121 37196 

Dec. 2, 1975 ........ S.2718 ................ Rail Services Act ............................................................ Hartke ............................ Dec. 4, 1975 ....... 61–27 No. 542 I 121 38441 Dec. 3, 1975 ........ H.R.10481 .......... Intergovernmental Emergency Assistance ................. Byrd............................... Dec. 5, 1975 ....... 70–27 No. 553 I 121 38785 

Dec. 5, 1975 ........ H.R.10647 .......... Supplemental Appropriations Act FY76...................... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Dec. 8, 1975 ....... UC V 121 39043 

Dec. 5, 1975 ........ H.R.10647 .......... Supplemental Appropriations Act FY76...................... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Dec. 8, 1975 ....... UC V 121 39043 

Jan. 30, 1976 ...... H.R.8529 ............ Rice Production Act....................................................... Huddleston.................... Feb. 3, 1976 ....... 70–19 No. 21 I 122 2123 

May 13, 1976 ...... S.Res.400 ........... Establish Senate Intelligence Activities Committee... Mansfi eld....................... May 17, 1976 ..... UC V 122 14152 

May 28, 1976 ...... H.R.8532 ............ Anti-trust Amendment .................................................. 

substitute amendment Byrd............................... June 3, 1976 ...... 67–22 No. 211 I 122 16472 

June 4, 1976 ....... H.R.8532 ............ Anti-trust Amendments................................................ Byrd............................... June 10, 1976 .... UC V 122 17541 

June 29, 1976 ..... H.R.14232 .......... Labor, HEW Appropriations Act, FY77........................ Byrd............................... June 29, 1976 .... UC V 122 21260 

Aug. 27, 1976 ...... H.R.8532 ............ Anti-Trust Amendments............................................... 

motion agreement Mansfi eld....................... Aug. 31, 1976 ..... 63–27 No. 546 I 122 28573 

Sept. 21, 1976 ..... S.2278 ................ Civil Rights Attorney’s Fees Awards Act ...................... Byrd............................... Sept. 23, 1976 .... 63–26 No. 638 I 122 32172 
121

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

95th

Jan. 19, 1977 ...... S.Res.18 ............. Vietnam Draft Evaders Pardon.................................... Allen............................... Jan. 24, 1977 ..... 53–43 No. 8 F 123 1934 

July 27, 1977 ...... S.926 .................. Public Financing of Senate Elections Act.................... Byrd............................... July 29, 1977 ..... 49–45 No. 318 F 123 25700 

July 28, 1977 ...... S.926 .................. Public Financing of Senate Elections Act.................... Byrd............................... Aug. 1, 1977 ....... 47–46 No. 320 F 123 25817 

July 29, 1977 ...... S.926 .................. Public Financing of Senate Elections Act.................... Byrd............................... Aug. 2, 1977 ....... 52–46 No. 321 F 123 26022 

Aug. 1, 1977 ........ S.926 .................. Public Financing of Senate Elections Act.................... Byrd............................... Aug. 2, 1977 ....... UC V 123 26038 

Sept. 23, 1977 ..... S.2104 ................ Natural Gas Policy Act................................................. 

S.Amdt.862 Byrd............................... Sept. 26, 1977 .... 77–17 No. 408 I 123 30809 

Sept. 24, 1977 ..... S.2104 ................ Natural Gas Policy Act................................................. 

S.Amdt.862 Byrd............................... Sept. 26, 1977 .... no vote N 123 30810 

June 5, 1978 ....... H.R.8410 ............ Labor Reform Act.......................................................... Byrd............................... June 8, 1978 ...... 49–41 No. 163 F 124 16839 

June 5, 1978 ....... H.R.8410 ............ Labor Reform Act.......................................................... Byrd............................... June 7, 1978 ...... 42–47 No. 162 F 124 16512 

June 9, 1978 ....... H.R.8410 ............ Labor Reform Act.......................................................... 

S.Amdt.2445 Byrd............................... June 13, 1978 .... 54–43 No. 165 F 124 17450 

June 12, 1978 ..... H.R.8410 ............ Labor Reform Act.......................................................... 

S.Amdt.2445 Byrd............................... June 14, 1978 .... 58–41 No. 166 F 124 17568 

June 13, 1978 ..... H.R.8410 ............ Labor Reform Act.......................................................... 

S.Amdt.2445 Byrd............................... June 15, 1978 .... 58–39 No. 167 F 124 17749 

June 15, 1978 ..... H.R.8410 ............ Labor Reform Act.......................................................... 

S.Amdt.2445 Byrd............................... June 22, 1978 .... 53–45 No. 168 F 124 18398 

Aug. 16, 1978 ...... H.J.Res.554........ District of Columbia Representation in Congress....... Byrd............................... Aug. 17, 1978 ..... no vote W 124 26647 

Sept. 27, 1978 ..... H.J.Res.638........ Equal Rights Amendment Ratifi cation Extension...... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Sept. 28, 1978 .... no vote N 124 32172 

Sept. 28, 1978 ..... H.J.Res.638........ Equal Rights Amendment Ratifi cation Extension...... Byrd............................... Sept. 28, 1978 .... UC V 124 32218 

Oct. 6, 1978 ......... H.R.13511 .......... Revenue Act................................................................... 

S.Amdt.3678 Glenn............................. Oct. 9, 1978 ........ no vote N 124 34863 

Oct. 6, 1978 ......... H.R.13511 .......... Revenue Act................................................................... Byrd............................... Oct. 9, 1978 ........ 62–28 No. 465 I 124 34780 

Oct. 7, 1978 1 ....... H.R.13511 .......... Revenue Act................................................................... 

S.Amdt.4049 Nelson............................ Oct. 9, 1978 ........ no vote N 124 34863 

Oct. 11, 1978 ....... H.R.50 ................ Full Employment and Balanced Growth Act............... Byrd............................... Oct. 13, 1978 ...... no vote V 124 36716 

Oct. 12, 1978 ....... S.3279 ................ Aircraft and Airport Noise Reduction Act.................... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Oct. 12, 1978 ...... no vote N 124 36180 

Oct. 12, 1978 ....... H.R.7200 ............ Public Assistance Amendments.................................... Byrd............................... Oct. 12, 1978 ...... no vote N 124 36244 

Oct. 12, 1978 ....... H.R.5263 ............ Energy Tax Act.............................................................. 

conference report Byrd............................... Oct. 14, 1978 ...... 71–13 No. 497 I 124 37384 

96th

June 27, 1979 ..... S.J.Res.28 .......... Direct Popular Election of President and Vice 

President 

Bayh............................... July 9, 1979 ....... UC W 125 17456 

Dec. 10, 1979 ...... H.R.3919 ............ Crude Oil Windfall Profi t Tax of 1980......................... Byrd............................... Dec. 12, 1979 ..... 53–46 No. 472 F 125 35597 

Dec. 11, 1979 ....... H.R.3919 ............ Crude Oil Windfall Profi t Tax of 1980......................... Byrd............................... Dec. 13, 1979 ..... 56–40 No. 479 F 125 35912 

Dec. 12, 1979 ...... H.R.3919 ............ Crude Oil Windfall Profi t Tax of 1980......................... Byrd............................... Dec. 14, 1979 ..... 56–39 No. 481 F 125 36025 

Dec. 14, 1979 ...... H.R.3919 ............ Crude Oil Windfall Profi t Tax of 1980......................... Byrd............................... Dec. 17, 1979 ..... 84–14 No. 491 I 125 36442 

Mar. 24, 1980 ...... H.R.3919 ............ Crude Oil Windfall Profi t Tax Act of 1980................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Mar. 26, 1980 ..... UC V 126 6575 

Mar. 25, 1980 ...... H.R.3919 ............ Crude Oil Windfall Profi t Tax Act of 1980................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Mar. 26, 1980 ..... UC V 126 6575 

Apr. 17, 1980 ....... Nomination ........ Nominee William A. Lubbers ........................................ Byrd............................... Apr. 21, 1980 ...... 46–40 No. 79 I 126 8445 

Apr. 18, 1980 ....... Nomination ........ Nominee William A. Lubbers ........................................ Byrd............................... Apr. 22, 1980 ...... 62–34 No. 80 I 126 8510 
122

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Apr. 21, 1980 ....... Nomination ........ Nominee William A. Lubbers ........................................ Byrd............................... Apr. 22, 1980 ...... UC V 126 8510 

Apr. 24, 1980 ....... H.R.10 ................ Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons..................... 

conference report Bayh............................... Apr. 28, 1980 ...... 44–39 No. 85 F 126 9176 

Apr. 25, 1980 ....... H.R.10 ................ Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons..................... 

conference report DeConcini...................... Apr. 29, 1980 ...... 56–34 No. 86 F 126 9928 

Apr. 28, 1980 ....... H.R.10 ................ Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons..................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Apr. 30, 1980 ...... 53–35 No. 87 F 126 9384 

Apr. 29, 1980 ....... H.R.10 ................ Civil Rights of Institutionalized Persons..................... 

conference report Byrd............................... May 1, 1980 ....... 60–34 No. 90 I 126 9585 

May 13, 1980 ...... S.598 .................. Soft Drink Interbrand Competition Act....................... Byrd............................... May 15, 1980 ..... 86–6 No. 143 I 126 11336 

June 6, 1980 ....... H.J.Res.521........ Draft Registration......................................................... Byrd............................... June 10, 1980 .... 62–32 No. 176 I 126 13864 

June 9, 1980 ....... H.J.Res.521........ Draft Registration......................................................... Byrd............................... June 10, 1980 .... no vote N 126 13864 

July 30, 1980 ...... Nomination ........ Nominee Don A. Zimmerman....................................... Byrd............................... Aug. 1, 1980 ....... 51–35 No. 338 F 126 20998 

July 31, 1980 ...... Nomination ........ Nominee Don A. Zimmerman....................................... Byrd............................... Aug. 4, 1980 ....... 45–31 No. 340 F 126 21185 

Aug. 1, 1980 ........ Nomination ........ Nominee Don A. Zimmerman....................................... Byrd............................... Aug. 5, 1980 ....... 63–31 No. 344 I 126 21305 

Aug. 5, 1980 ........ H.R.39 ................ Alaska Lands Conservation Act................................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Aug. 18, 1980 ..... no vote N 126 21583 

Aug. 5, 1980 ........ H.R.39 ................ Alaska Lands Conservation Act................................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Aug. 18, 1980 ..... 63–25 No. 354 I 126 21583 

Aug. 19, 1980 ...... H.R.1197 ............ Tonnage Measurement Simplifi cation Act................... 

S.Amdt.1972 Byrd............................... Aug. 21, 1980 ..... 61–32 No. 362 I 126 22469 

Aug. 20, 1980 ...... H.R.1197 ............ Tonnage Measurement Simplifi cation Act................... 

S.Amdt.1972 Byrd............................... Aug. 21, 1980 ..... no vote N 126 22469 

Dec. 1, 1980 ........ H.R.5200 ............ Fair Housing Amendments of 1979 .............................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Dec. 3, 1980 ....... 51–39 No. 500 F 126 31699 

Dec. 2, 1980 ........ Nomination ........ Judicial Nominee Stephen G. Breyer ........................... Kennedy......................... Dec. 9, 1980 ....... 68–28 No. 512 I 126 33009 

Dec. 2, 1980 ........ H.R.5200 ............ Fair Housing Amendments of 1979 .............................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Dec. 4, 1980 ....... 62–32 No. 504 I 126 32336 

Dec. 3, 1980 ........ H.R.5200 ............ Fair Housing Amendments of 1979 .............................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Dec. 9, 1980 ....... 54–43 No. 511 F 126 32989 

Dec. 3, 1980 ........ Nomination ........ Judicial Nominee Stephen G. Breyer ........................... Byrd............................... Dec. 9, 1980 ....... no vote N 126 33009 

Dec. 5, 1980 ........ H.R.5200 ............ Fair Housing Amendments of 1979 .............................. Byrd............................... Dec. 9, 1980 ....... no vote N 126 32989 

97th

July 8, 1981 ........ S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. Baker............................. July 10, 1981 ..... 38–48 No. 184 F 127 15399 

July 9, 1981 ........ S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. 

S.Amdt.96 Johnston........................ July 13, 1981 ..... 54–32 No. 185 F 127 15487 

July 13, 1981 ...... S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. 

S.Amdt.96 Johnston........................ July 29, 1981 ..... 59–37 No. 240 F 127 17986 

Aug. 3, 1981 ........ S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. 

S.Amdt.96 Byrd............................... Sept. 10, 1981 .... 57–33 No. 252 F 127 20175 

Sept. 10, 1981 ..... S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. 

S.Amdt.96 Byrd............................... Sept. 16, 1981 .... 61–36 No. 257 I 127 20787 
123

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Sept. 16, 1981 ..... S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. 

S.Amdt.69 Helms............................. Dec. 10, 1981 ..... 64–35 No. 468 I 127 30408 

Dec. 9, 1981 ........ H.R.4169 ............ Departments of Commerce, Justice, State 

Appropriations FY82 

Helms............................. Dec. 11, 1981 ...... 59–35 No. 483 F 127 30904 

Feb. 4, 1982 ........ S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. Johnston........................ Feb. 9, 1982 ....... 63–33 No. 4 I 128 1180 

Feb. 9, 1982 ........ S.951 .................. Department of Justice Authorization FY82 ................. Johnston........................ Feb. 9, 1982 ....... no vote V 128 1180 

Apr. 15, 1982 ....... S.Res.20 ............. Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings............................ Baker............................. Apr. 20, 1982 ...... 47–51 No. 81 F 128 7065 

Apr. 19, 1982 ....... S.Res.20 ............. Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings............................ Mathias.......................... Apr. 21, 1982 ...... UC V 128 7306 

Apr. 20, 1982 ....... S.Res.20 ............. Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings............................ Baker............................. Apr. 21, 1982 ...... UC V 128 7306 

Apr. 22, 1982 ....... S.1630 ................ Criminal Code Reform Act of 1981............................... 

motion to proceed Stevens ........................... Apr. 27, 1982 ...... 45–46 No. 84 F 128 7777 

May 25, 1982 ...... H.R.5922 ............ Urgent Supplemental Appropriations FY82 ................ Baker............................. May 27, 1982 ..... 95–2 No. 160 I 128 12219 

June 14, 1982 ..... S.1992 ................ Voting Rights Act Amendments .................................... Baker............................. June 15, 1982 .... 86–8 No. 172 I 128 13678 

Aug. 20, 1982 ...... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2038 Baker............................. Sept. 9, 1982 ...... 41–47 No. 340 F 128 23092 

Sept. 9, 1982 ....... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2038 Baker............................. Sept. 13, 1982 .... 45–35 No. 342 F 128 23255 

Sept. 13, 1982 ..... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2038 Baker............................. Sept. 15, 1982 .... 50–44 No. 343 F 128 23617 

Sept. 14, 1982 ..... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2038 Baker............................. Sept. 15, 1982 .... no vote V 128 23618 

Sept. 16, 1982 ..... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2031 Helms............................. Sept. 20, 1982 .... 50–39 No. 345 F 128 24169 

Sept. 17, 1982 ..... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2031 Baker............................. Sept. 21, 1982 .... 53–47 No. 346 F 128 24471 

Sept. 17, 1982 ..... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2031 Baker............................. Sept. 17, 1982 .... UC W 128 24140 

Sept. 20, 1982 ..... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2031 Baker............................. Sept. 22, 1982 .... 54–46 No. 347 F 128 24583 

Sept. 21, 1982 ..... H.J.Res.520........ Temporary Debt Limit Increase................................... 

S.Amdt.2031 Baker............................. Sept. 23, 1982 .... 53–45 No. 349 F 128 24776 

Nov. 30, 1982 ...... S.995 .................. Anti-Trust Contributions.............................................. Stevens ........................... Dec. 2, 1982 ....... 44–51 No. 391 F 128 28439 

Nov. 30, 1982 ...... S.995 .................. Anti-Trust Contributions.............................................. 

committee amendment Stevens ........................... Dec. 2, 1982 ....... 38–58 No. 390 F 128 28438 

Dec. 1, 1982 ........ S.995 .................. Anti-Trust Contributions.............................................. 

committee amendment Thurmond...................... Dec. 2, 1982 ....... UC V 128 28442 

Dec. 10, 1982 ...... H.R.6211 ............ Surface Transportation Act of 1982............................. 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Dec. 13, 1982 ..... 75–13 No. 401 I 128 30128 

Dec. 14, 1982 ...... H.R.6211 ............ Surface Transportation Act of 1982............................. Baker............................. Dec. 16, 1982 ..... 5–93 No. 417 F 128 31254 

Vote No. 417 Reconsidered Dec. 20, 1982 ..... 87–8 No. 465 I 128 32649 

Dec. 14, 1982 ...... H.R.6211 ............ Surface Transportation Act of 1982............................. 

S.Amdt.4998 Baker............................. Dec. 16, 1982 ..... 48–50 No. 416 F 128 31254 

Vote No. 416 Reconsidered Dec. 19, 1982 ..... 89–5 No. 456 I 128 32490 

Dec. 21, 1982 ...... H.R.6211 ............ Surface Transportation Act of 1982............................. 

conference report Baker............................. Dec. 23, 1982 ..... 81–5 No. 468 I 128 33549 

98th

Feb. 24, 1983 ...... S.47 .................... Shipping Act of 1983..................................................... Baker............................. Mar. 1, 1983 ....... UC V 129 3264 
124

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Mar. 14, 1983 ...... H.R.1718 ............ Emergency Jobs Appropriations ................................... 

S.Amdt.504 Kasten............................ Mar. 16, 1983 ..... 59–39 No. 27 F 129 5437 

Mar. 14, 1983 ...... H.R.1718 ............ Emergency Jobs Appropriations ................................... Dole................................ Mar. 16, 1983 ..... 50–48 No. 26 F 129 5437 

Mar. 16, 1983 ...... H.R.1718 ............ Emergency Jobs Appropriations ................................... Baker............................. Mar. 17, 1983 ..... no vote V 129 5909 

Apr. 15, 1983 ....... S.144 .................. International Trade and Investment Act..................... Kasten............................ Apr. 19, 1983 ...... 34–53 No. 57 F 129 8971 Apr. 18, 1983 ....... S.144 .................. International Trade and Investment Act..................... Kasten............................ Apr. 20, 1983 ...... 39–59 No. 58 F 129 9131 

July 19, 1983 ...... S.675 .................. Defense Authorization FY84........................................ Baker............................. July 21, 1983 ..... UC V 129 20293 

July 19, 1983 ...... S.675 .................. Defense Authorization FY84........................................ 

committee substitute Baker............................. July 21, 1983 ..... 55–41 No. 214 F 129 20293 

July 20, 1983 ...... S.675 .................. Defense Authorization FY84........................................ Baker............................. July 22, 1983 ..... UC V 129 20477 

July 20, 1983 ...... S.675 .................. Defense Authorization FY84........................................ 

committee substitute Baker............................. July 22, 1983 ..... UC V 129 20477 

July 21, 1983 ...... S.675 .................. Defense Authorization FY84........................................ Baker............................. July 22, 1983 ..... UC V 129 20477 

July 21, 1983 ...... S.675 .................. Defense Authorization FY84........................................ 

committee substitute Baker............................. July 22, 1983 ..... UC V 129 20477 

July 29, 1983 ...... S.602 .................. Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act ................................... 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Aug. 3, 1983 ....... 62–33 No. 242 I 129 22441 

Aug. 2, 1983 ........ S.602 .................. Radio Broadcasting to Cuba Act ................................... 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Aug. 3, 1983 ....... no vote N 129 22441 

Oct. 3, 1983 ......... H.R.3706 ............ Martin Luther King, Jr. Holiday.................................. 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Oct. 5, 1983 ........ UC V 129 27220 

Nov. 1, 1983 ........ S.1715 ................ Natural Gas Policy Act Amendments of 1983 .............. 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Nov. 3, 1983 ....... 86–7 No. 331 I 129 30645 

Nov. 2, 1983 ........ S.1715 ................ Natural Gas Policy Act Amendments of 1983 .............. 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Nov. 3, 1983 ....... no vote N 129 30645 

Nov. 14, 1983 ...... H.J.Res.290........ Olympic Duty Suspension............................................ 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Nov. 15, 1983 ..... UC V 129 32554 

Feb. 7, 1984 ........ S.1765 ................ Capital Punishment...................................................... Baker............................. Feb. 9, 1984 ....... 65–26 No. 13 I 130 2472 

Mar. 21, 1984 ...... H.R.4072 ............ Agricultural Programs Adjustment Act....................... Baker............................. Mar. 22, 1984 ..... no vote N 130 6416 

Mar. 21, 1984 ...... H.R.4072 ............ Agricultural Programs Adjustment Act....................... 

committee substitute Baker............................. Mar. 22, 1984 ..... no vote N 130 6408 

July 26, 1984 ...... Nomination ........ Judicial nominee James H. Wilkinson III................... Baker............................. July 31, 1984 ..... 57–39 No. 208 F 130 21600 

July 26, 1984 ...... S.268 .................. Hydroelectric Powerplants........................................... 

 motion to concur in the House amendment Baker............................. July 30, 1984 ..... 60–28 No. 202 I 130 21523 

July 27, 1984 ...... S.268 .................. Hydroelectric Powerplants........................................... 

motion to concur in the House amendment Baker............................. July 30, 1984 ..... no vote N 130 21524 

July 31, 1984 ...... Nomination ........ Judicial nominee James H. Wilkinson III................... Baker............................. Aug. 9, 1984 ....... 65–32 No. 225 I 130 23284 

Aug. 2, 1984 ........ H.R.5743 ............ Department of Agriculture Appropriations FY85....... 

motion to waive the Budget Act Baker............................. Aug. 6, 1984 ....... 54–31 No. 211 F 130 22510 

Aug. 6, 1984 ........ H.R.5743 ............ Department of Agriculture Appropriations FY85....... 

motion to waive the Budget Act Baker............................. Aug. 8, 1984 ....... 68–30 No. 213 I 130 22721 

Sept. 6, 1984 ....... S.2851 ................ Financial Services Competitive Equity Act................. 

motion to proceed Garn............................... Sept. 10, 1984 .... 89–3 No. 232 I 130 24715 
125

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Sept. 11, 1984 ..... S.2851 ................ Financial Services Competitive Equity Act................. Baker............................. Sept. 13, 1984 .... 92–6 No. 236 I 130 25284 

Sept. 13, 1984 ..... S.Res.66 ............. Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings............................ 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Sept. 18, 1984 .... 73–26 No. 240 I 130 25771 

Sept. 19, 1984 ..... S.Res.66 ............. Broadcasting of Senate Proceedings............................ Baker............................. Sept. 21, 1984 .... 37–44 No. 247 F 130 26453 

Sept. 20, 1984 ..... S.2527 ................ Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1984................................ 

motion to proceed Baker............................. Sept. 24, 1984 .... 70–12 No. 249 I 130 26601 

Sept. 25, 1984 ..... S.2527 ................ Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1984................................ Baker............................. Sept. 27, 1984 .... UC V 130 27462 

Sept. 27, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

Committee Amendment No. 1 Hatch............................. Oct. 2, 1984 ........ UC V 130 28291 

Sept. 27, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

S.Amdt.5727 Hatch............................. Oct. 2, 1984 ........ no vote N 130 28290 

Sept. 27, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

S.Amdt.5509 Byrd............................... Oct. 2, 1984 ........ no vote N 130 28290 

Sept. 27, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

S.Amdt.5508 Byrd............................... Sept. 29, 1984 .... 92–4 No. 255 I 130 27825 

Sept. 28, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

Committee Amendment No. 1 Byrd............................... Oct. 2, 1984 ........ UC V 130 28291 

Sept. 28, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

S.Amdt.5727 Byrd............................... Oct. 2, 1984 ........ no vote N 130 28290 

Sept. 28, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

S.Amdt.5509 Byrd............................... Oct. 2, 1984 ........ no vote N 130 28290 

Sept. 28, 1984 ..... H.J.Res.648........ Continuing Appropriations FY85................................. 

S.Amdt.5508 Baker............................. Oct. 2, 1984 ........ no vote N 130 28290 

99th

June 25, 1985 ..... H.R.2475 ............ Amend IRS Code to Simplify Interest Rules............... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ June 26, 1985 .... no vote N 131 17275 

July 8, 1985 ........ S.995 .................. South Africa Anti-Apartheid ......................................... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ July 10, 1985 ..... 88–8 No. 143 I 131 18323 

July 16, 1985 ...... S.43 .................... Line Item Veto............................................................... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ July 18, 1985 ..... 57–42 No. 156 F 131 19565 

July 19, 1985 ...... S.43 .................... Line Item Veto............................................................... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ July 23, 1985 ..... 57–41 No. 157 F 131 19950 

July 22, 1985 ...... S.43 .................... Line Item Veto............................................................... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ July 24, 1985 ..... 58–40 No. 158 F 131 20296 

Aug. 1, 1985 ........ H.R.1460 ............ South Africa Anti-Apartheid ......................................... 

conference report Dole................................ Sept. 9, 1985 ...... 53–34 No. 171 F 131 23035 

Sept. 9, 1985 ....... H.R.1460 ............ South Africa Anti-Apartheid ......................................... 

conference report Kennedy......................... Sept. 11, 1985 .... 57–41 No. 173 F 131 23299 

Sept. 10, 1985 ..... H.R.1460 ............ South Africa Anti-Apartheid ......................................... 

motion to proceed to conference report Byrd............................... Sept. 12, 1985 .... 11–88 No. 175 F 131 23582 

Oct. 2, 1985 ......... S.J.Res.77 .......... Compact of Free Association ......................................... 

S.Amdt.724 Thurmond...................... Oct. 2, 1985 ........ UC W 131 25626 

Oct. 4, 1985 ......... H.J.Res.372........ Public Debt Limit and Balanced Budget..................... 

S.Amdt.730 Dole................................ Oct. 6, 1985 ........ 57–38 No. 203 F 131 26326 

Vote No. 203 reconsidered Oct. 8, 1985 ........ 53–39 No. 209 F 131 26764 

Oct. 5, 1985 ......... H.J.Res.372........ Public Debt Limit and Balanced Budget..................... 

S.Amdt.736 Dole................................ Oct. 6, 1985 ........ no vote N 131 26328 
126

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Oct. 6, 1985 ......... H.J.Res.372........ Public Debt Limit and Balanced Budget..................... 

motion to recommit Byrd............................... Oct. 6, 1985 ........ no vote N 131 26328 

Oct. 6, 1985 ......... H.J.Res.372........ Public Debt Limit and Balanced Budget..................... 

S.Amdt.738 Dole................................ Oct. 8, 1985 ........ UC V 131 26743 

Oct. 8, 1985 ......... H.J.Res.372........ Public Debt Limit and Balanced Budget..................... 

S.Amdt.743 Dole................................ Oct. 9, 1985 ........ no vote N 131 26847 

Oct. 8, 1985 ......... H.J.Res.372........ Public Debt Limit and Balanced Budget..................... Byrd............................... Oct. 10, 1985 ...... UC V 131 27242 

Oct. 8, 1985 ......... H.J.Res.372........ Public Debt Limit and Balanced Budget..................... Byrd............................... Oct. 10, 1985 ...... UC V 131 27242 

Nov. 22, 1985 ...... S.1714 ................ Expand Export Markets............................................... 

 motion to recommit Byrd............................... Nov. 23, 1985 ..... no vote N 131 33482 

Jan. 21, 1986 ...... S.638 .................. Conrail Sale................................................................... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Jan. 23, 1986 ..... 90–7 No. 1 I 132 369 

Jan. 28, 1986 ...... S.638 .................. Conrail Sale................................................................... 

S.Amdt.1437 Dole................................ Jan. 30, 1986 ..... 70–27 No. 7 I 132 1199 

Feb. 18, 1986 ...... Treaty ................. Genocide treaty............................................................. Dole................................ Feb. 19, 1986 ..... no vote N 132 2349 

Mar. 14, 1986 ...... PN876-05 ........... Judicial nominee Sidney A. Fitzwater......................... Dole................................ Mar. 18, 1986 ..... 64–33 No. 40 I 132 5145 

Mar. 19, 1986 ...... S.1017 ................ Metro Washington Airports Transfer........................... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Mar. 21, 1986 ..... 50–39 No. 43 F 132 5908 

Mar. 20, 1986 ...... S.1017 ................ Metro Washington Airports Transfer........................... 

motion to proceed Simpson......................... Mar. 24, 1986 ..... UC W 132 6027 

Mar. 21, 1986 ...... S.1017 ................ Metro Washington Airports Transfer........................... 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Mar. 25, 1986 ..... 66–32 No. 44 I 132 6073 

Apr. 9, 1986 ......... S.1017 ................ Metro Washington Airports Transfer........................... 

committee substitute Dole................................ Apr. 10, 1986 ...... UC W 132 7184 

Apr. 9, 1986 ......... S.1017 ................ Metro Washington Airports Transfer........................... Dole................................ Apr. 10, 1986 ...... UC W 132 7184 

Apr. 14, 1986 ....... S.1774 ................ Hobbs Act Amendments................................................ 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Apr. 16, 1986 ...... 44–54 No. 67 F 132 7707 

June 24, 1986 ..... PN909 ................ Judicial nominee Daniel Manion................................. Thurmond...................... June 26, 1986 .... UC V 132 15809 

Aug. 4, 1986 ........ S.2638 ................ National Defense Authorization FY87......................... Warner........................... Aug. 6, 1986 ....... 53–46 No. 180 F 132 19535 

Aug. 5, 1986 ........ S.2638 ................ National Defense Authorization FY87......................... 

S.Amdt.2417 Dole................................ Aug. 8, 1986 ....... UC N 132 20179 

Aug. 5, 1986 ........ S.2638 ................ National Defense Authorization FY87......................... 

S.Amdt.2414 Byrd............................... Aug. 8, 1986 ....... UC N 132 20179 

Aug. 6, 1986 ........ S.2638 ................ National Defense Authorization FY87......................... Dole................................ Aug. 8, 1986 ....... UC W 132 20179 

Aug. 9, 1986 ........ H.R.5052 ............ Military Construction Appropriations FY87............... 

Contra Aid Dole................................ Aug. 13, 1986 ..... 62–37 No. 220 I 132 21295 

Aug. 9, 1986 ........ H.R.5052 ............ Military Construction Appropriations FY87............... 

Contra Aid Dole................................ Aug. 13, 1986 ..... 59–40 No. 218 F 132 21288 

Aug. 9, 1986 ........ S.2701 ................ South Africa Anti-Apartheid ......................................... Byrd............................... Aug. 13, 1986 ..... no vote N 132 21291 

Aug. 9, 1986 ........ S.2701 ................ South Africa Anti-Apartheid ......................................... Byrd............................... Aug. 13, 1986 ..... 89–11 No. 219 I 132 21291 

Sept. 15, 1986 ..... PN1184 .............. Judicial nominee William Rehnquist........................... Dole................................ Sept. 17, 1986 .... 68–31 No. 265 I 132 23739 

Sept. 23, 1986 ..... S.2760 ................ Product Liability Reform Act........................................ 

motion to proceed Kasten............................ Sept. 25, 1986 .... 97–1 No. 291 I 132 26136 
127

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Sept. 30, 1986 ..... H.R.4868 ............ Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986........................................... 

passage over veto Byrd............................... Oct. 1, 1986 ........ UC V 132 27567 

Oct. 10, 1986 ....... H.R.5484 ............ Anti-Drug Abuse Act..................................................... 

motion to concur with House amdts Dole................................ Oct. 15, 1986 ...... 58–38 No. 346 F 132 31364 

Oct. 15, 1986 ....... S.1200 ................ Immigration Reform and Control Act.......................... 

conference report Simpson......................... Oct. 17, 1986 ...... 69–21 No. 355 I 132 33181 

100th

Feb. 5, 1987 ........ S.83 .................... Appliance Energy Conservation Act............................ Byrd............................... Feb. 17, 1987 ..... no vote N 133 3374 

Mar. 19, 1987 ...... H.J.Res.175........ Contra Aid Moratorium................................................ 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Mar. 23, 1987 ..... 46–45 No. 36 F 133 6575 

Mar. 20, 1987 ...... H.J.Res.175........ Contra Aid Moratorium................................................ 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Mar. 24, 1987 ..... 50–50 No. 37 F 133 6651 

Mar. 23, 1987 ...... H.J.Res.175........ Contra Aid Moratorium................................................ 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Mar. 25, 1987 ..... 54–46 No. 38 F 133 6801 

Apr. 8, 1987 ......... H.R.558 .............. Homeless Assistance Act ............................................... 

S.Amdt.90 Kennedy......................... Apr. 9, 1987 ........ 68–29 No. 73 I 133 8715 

Apr. 9, 1987 ......... H.R.558 .............. Homeless Assistance Act ............................................... Byrd............................... Apr. 9, 1987 ........ no vote N 133 8715 

Apr. 9, 1987 ......... H.R.558 .............. Homeless Assistance Act ............................................... 

S.Amdt.90 Byrd............................... Apr. 9, 1987 ........ no vote N 133 8715 

May 13, 1987 ...... S.1174 ................ Defense Authorization FY88–89.................................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... May 15, 1987 ..... 52–36 No. 112 F 133 12575 

May 14, 1987 ...... S.1174 ................ Defense Authorization FY88–89.................................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... May 19, 1987 ..... 58–41 No. 114 F 133 12912 

May 15, 1987 ...... S.1174 ................ Defense Authorization FY88–89.................................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... May 20, 1987 ..... 59–39 No. 116 F 133 13168 

May 19, 1987 ...... S.1174 ................ Defense Authorization FY88–89.................................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... May 20, 1987 ..... UC V 133 13225 

June 5, 1987 ....... S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... June 9, 1987 ...... 52–47 No. 148 F 133 15062 

June 11, 1987 ...... S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... June 17, 1987 .... 51–47 No. 151 F 133 16377 

June 11, 1987 ...... S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... June 16, 1987 .... 49–46 No. 150 F 133 16129 

June 16, 1987 ..... S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... June 18, 1987 .... 50–47 No. 152 F 133 16626 

June 17, 1987 ..... S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... June 19, 1987 .... 45–43 No. 153 F 133 16818 

July 1, 1987 ........ S.1420 ................ Omnibus Trade Act of 1987 ......................................... 

S.Amdt.367 Byrd............................... July 9, 1987 ....... 57–42 No. 181 F 133 19152 

July 9, 1987 ........ S.1420 ................ Omnibus Trade Act of 1987.......................................... 

S.Amdt.367 Byrd............................... July 14, 1987 ..... 53–40 No. 189 F 133 19685 

July 10, 1987 ...... S.1420 ................ Omnibus Trade Act of 1987.......................................... 

S.Admt.450 Byrd............................... July 15, 1987 ..... 54–44 No. 196 F 133 19916 

July 14, 1987 ...... S.1420 ................ Omnibus Trade Act of 1987.......................................... Byrd............................... July 16, 1987 ..... UC I 

Aug. 6, 1987 ........ PN73 .................. Nominee Melissa F. Wells............................................. Byrd............................... Sept. 9, 1987 ...... 65–24 No. 234 I 133 23535 

Aug. 7, 1987 ........ S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Sept. 10, 1987 .... 53–42 No. 239 F 133 23723 
128

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Sept. 10, 1987 ..... S.1174 ................ Defense Authorization FY 88–89................................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Sept. 11, 1987 .... no vote N 133 23817 

Sept. 10, 1987 ..... S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Sept. 15, 1987 .... 51–44 No. 242 F 133 23950 

Sept. 30, 1987 ..... S.1174 ................ Defense Authorization FY 88–89................................. Dole................................ Oct. 1, 1987 ........ 41–58 No. 297 F 133 26125 

Sept. 30, 1987 ..... S.1174 ................ Defense Authorization FY 88–89................................. 

S.Amdt.732 Byrd............................... Oct. 1, 1987 ........ 54–45 No. 296 F 133 26125 

Oct. 8, 1987 ......... PN589 ................ Nominee C. William Verity........................................... Byrd............................... Oct. 13, 1987 ...... 85–8 No. 320 I 133 27388 

Oct. 16, 1987 ....... S.J.Res.194 ........ War Powers Act Compliance......................................... 

S.Amdt.951 Byrd............................... Oct. 20, 1987 ...... 67–28 No. 339 I 133 28383 

Nov. 5, 1987 ........ H.R.2700 ............ Energy and Water Appropriations FY88..................... 

S.Amdt.1125 Johnston........................ Nov. 10, 1987 ..... 87–0 No. 372 I 133 31466 

Feb. 23, 1988 ...... S.2 ...................... Senatorial Election Campaign Act............................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Feb. 26, 1988 ..... 53–41 No. 30 F 134 2584 

Mar. 1, 1988 ........ S.1904 ................ Polygraph Protection Act.............................................. 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Mar. 3, 1988 ....... 77–19 No. 42 I 134 3060 

Mar. 4, 1988 ........ S.1721 ................ Intelligence Oversight Act............................................ 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Mar. 15, 1988 ..... 73–18 No. 49 I 134 3876 

Mar. 21, 1988 ...... S.79 .................... Occupational Disease Notifi cation and Prevention..... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Mar. 23, 1988 ..... 33–59 No. 68 F 134 4844 

Mar. 22, 1988 ...... S.79 .................... Occupational Disease Notifi cation and Prevention..... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Mar. 24, 1988 ..... 2–93 No. 69 F 134 5136 

Mar. 24, 1988 ...... S.79 .................... Occupational Disease Notifi cation and Prevention..... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Mar. 28, 1988 ..... 41–44 No. 77 F 134 5368 

Mar. 25, 1988 ...... S.79 .................... Occupational Disease Notifi cation and Prevention..... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Mar. 29, 1988 ..... 42–52 No. 79 F 134 5464 

Apr. 20, 1988 ....... S.J.Res.282 ........ Campaign Contributions Constitutional Amendment 

S.Amdt.1957 Byrd............................... Apr. 21, 1988 ...... 52–42 No. 107 F 134 8345 

Apr. 21, 1988 ....... S.J.Res.282 ........ Campaign Contributions Constitutional Amendment 

S.Amdt.1957 UC.................................. Apr. 22, 1988 ...... 53–37 No. 108 F 134 8459 

Apr. 27, 1988 ....... H.R.4222 ............ Immigration Amnesty Program Extension.................. 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... Apr. 28, 1988 ...... 40–56 No. 116 F 134 9296 

May 24, 1988 ...... Treaty ................. INF treaty ...................................................................... Byrd............................... May 27, 1988 ..... UC V 134 12785 

June 8, 1988 ....... S.2455 ................ Death Penalty for Drug Related Killings.................... D’Amato......................... June 9, 1988 ...... 70–26 No. 172 I 134 14005 

June 16, 1988 ..... H.R.1495 ............ Great Smoky Mountains Wilderness Act..................... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... June 20, 1988 .... 49–35 No. 192 F 134 15172 

June 17, 1988 ..... H.R.1495 ............ Great Smoky Mountains Wilderness Act..................... 

motion to proceed Byrd............................... June 21, 1988 .... 54–42 No. 195 F 134 15342 

June 27, 1988 ..... S.2527 ................ Plant Closing Notifi cation............................................ Byrd............................... June 29, 1988 .... 58–39 No. 221 F 134 16320 

June 28, 1988 ..... S.2527 ................ Plant Closing Notifi cation............................................ Byrd............................... July 6, 1988 ....... no vote N 134 16677 

June 28, 1988 ..... S.2527 ................ Plant Closing Notifi cation............................................ Byrd............................... July 6, 1988 ....... no vote N 134 16677 

June 28, 1988 ..... S.2527 ................ Plant Closing Notifi cation............................................ Byrd............................... July 6, 1988 ....... 88–5 No. 222 I 134 16677 

June 29, 1988 ..... S.2527 ................ Plant Closing Notifi cation............................................ Byrd............................... July 6, 1988 ....... no vote N 134 16677 
129

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Aug. 10, 1988 ...... S.2662 ................ Textile, Apparel and Footwear Trade Act.................... Byrd............................... Sept. 7, 1988 ...... 68–29 No. 314 I 134 22435 

Sept. 9, 1988 ....... H.R.1154 ............ Textile, Apparel and Footwear Trade Act.................... 

S.Amdt.2945 Byrd............................... Sept. 13, 1988 .... UC V 134 23523 

Sept. 19, 1988 ..... S.837 .................. Minimum Wage Restoration Act of 1988..................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Sept. 22, 1988 .... 53–43 No. 335 F 134 24737 

Sept. 20, 1988 ..... S.837 .................. Minimum Wage Restoration Act of 1988..................... 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Sept. 23, 1988 .... 56–35 No. 336 F 134 25194 

Sept. 29, 1988 ..... S.2488 ................ Parental and Medical Leave Act.................................. 

motion to recommit Byrd............................... Oct. 3, 1988 ........ 85–6 No. 349 I 134 27399 

Oct. 5, 1988 ......... S.2488 ................ Parental and Medical Leave Act.................................. 

committee substitute Byrd............................... Oct. 7, 1988 ........ 50–46 No. 355 F 134 29265 

101st

Mar. 17, 1989 ...... H.R.1231 ............ Eastern Airlines Labor Dispute................................... 

motion to proceed Kennedy......................... Apr. 4, 1989 ........ UC V 135 5391 

June 9, 1989 ....... H.R.1722 ............ Natural Gas Decontrol Act........................................... McClure......................... June 13, 1989 .... UC V 135 11461 

July 19, 1989 ...... S.1160 ................ Foreign Relations Authorization FY90........................ Mitchell.......................... July 21, 1989 ..... no vote N July 31, 1989 ...... S.1352 ................ National Defense Authorization FY90/91.................... Nunn.............................. Aug. 1, 1989 ....... 84–13 No. 159 I 135 17602 

Aug. 2, 1989 ........ S.1352 ................ National Defense Authorization FY90/91.................... Nunn.............................. Aug. 2, 1989 ....... no vote N 

Aug. 4, 1989 ........ H.R.2989 ............ Treasury, Postal Appropriations FY90......................... Byrd............................... Aug. 4, 1989 ....... no vote N 

Sept. 13, 1989 ..... H.R.3015 ............ Transportation Appropriations FY90........................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Sept. 14, 1989 .... 77–21 No. 176 I 135 20457 

Sept. 29, 1989 ..... H.R.1231 ............ Eastern Airlines Labor Dispute................................... 

motion to proceed Cranston........................ Oct. 3, 1989 ........ 61–36 No. 222 I 135 22900 

Oct. 12, 1989 ....... H.R.3385 ............ Nicaragua Election Assistance..................................... Mitchell.......................... Oct. 13, 1989 ...... 52–42 No. 244 F 135 24606 Oct. 13, 1989 ....... H.R.3385 ............ Nicaragua Election Assistance..................................... Mitchell.......................... Oct. 17, 1989 ...... 74–25 No. 245 I 135 24836 

Oct. 24, 1989 ....... H.R.1231 ............ Eastern Airlines Labor Dispute................................... 

S.Amdt.1043 Mitchell.......................... Oct. 26, 1989 ...... 62–38 No. 273 I 135 26119 

Nov. 9, 1989 2 ....... H.R.3628 ............ Capital Gains Taxes...................................................... 

S.Amdt.1127 Mitchell.......................... Nov. 15, 1989 ..... 51–47 No. 298 F 135 29112 

Nov. 9, 1989 3 ....... H.R.3628 ............ Capital Gains Taxes...................................................... 

S.Amdt.1127 Mitchell.......................... Nov. 14, 1989 ..... 51–47 No. 295 F 135 28695 

Nov. 17, 1989 ...... H.R.3660 ............ Ethics Reform Act......................................................... 

S.Amdt.1158 Mitchell.......................... Nov. 17, 1989 ..... 90–9 No. 304 I 135 29678 

Feb. 20, 1990 ...... S.J.Res.212 ........ Armenian Genocide Day of Remembrance.................. 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Feb. 22, 1990 ..... 49–49 No. 16 F 136 2350 

Feb. 22, 1990 ...... S.J.Res.212 ........ Armenian Genocide Day of Remembrance.................. 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Feb. 27, 1990 ..... 48–51 No. 17 F 136 2778 

Apr. 27, 1990 ....... S.135 .................. Hatch Act Reform.......................................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... May 1, 1990 ....... 70–28 No. 76 I 136 8999 

May 8, 1990 ........ S.135 .................. Hatch Act Reform.......................................................... Mitchell.......................... May 9, 1990 ....... UC V 136 9778 

May 11, 1990 ...... S.2240 ................ Ryan White AIDS Resources Emergency Act.............. 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... May 15, 1990 ..... 95–3 No. 91 I 136 10325 

May 17, 1990 ...... S.195 .................. Chemical Weapons Control Act.................................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... May 17, 1990 ..... 87–4 No. 100 I 136 10980 

May 24, 1990 ...... S.1970 ................ Federal Death Penalty Act of 1989.............................. Mitchell.......................... June 5, 1990 ...... 54–37 No. 109 F 136 12698 

June 5, 1990 ....... S.1970 ................ Federal Death Penalty Act of 1989.............................. Mitchell.......................... June 7, 1990 ...... 57–37 No. 112 F 136 13359 June 8, 1990 ....... S.341 .................. Air Travel Rights for Blind Individuals....................... Hollings .......................... June 12, 1990 .... 56–44 No. 114 F 136 13749 
130

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

June 13, 1990 ..... H.R.770 .............. Family and Medical Leave Act..................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... June 14, 1990 .... UC W 136 14176 

June 22, 1990 ..... S.2104 ................ Civil Rights Act of 1990................................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... June 25, 1990 .... UC W 136 15504 

July 13, 1990 ...... S.2104 ................ Civil Rights Act of 1990................................................ 

S.Amdt.2110 Mitchell.......................... July 17, 1990 ..... 62–38 No. 158 I 136 17670 

July 16, 1990 ...... S.2830 ................ Farm bill........................................................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... July 18, 1990 ..... UC V 136 18091 

July 16, 1990 ...... S.2104 ................ Civil Rights Act of 1990................................................ Mitchell.......................... July 18, 1990 ..... UC V 136 18023 July 16, 1990 ...... S.2104 ................ Civil Rights Act of 1990................................................ 

S.Amdt.2110 Mitchell.......................... July 17, 1990 ..... no vote N 136 17670 

Aug. 2, 1990 4 ...... S.2884 ................ National Defense Authorization Act FY91.................. 

S.Amdt.2514 Mitchell.......................... Aug. 3, 1990 ....... 58–41 No. 212 F 136 22646 

Sept. 11, 1990 ..... S.1511 ................ Older Workers Benefi t Protection................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Sept. 12, 1990 .... UC V 

Sept. 12, 1990 ..... S.1224 ................ Motor Vehicle Fuel Effi ciency Act................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Sept. 14, 1990 .... 68–28 No. 235 I 136 24546 

Sept. 14, 1990 5 ... S.1224 ................ Motor Vehicle Fuel Effi ciency Act................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Sept. 14, 1990 .... no vote N 136 24546 

Sept. 18, 1990 ..... S.1511 ................ Older Workers Benefi t Protection................................ 

committee substitute Exon............................... Sept. 20, 1990 .... UC V 136 25195 

Sept. 19, 1990 6 ... S.874 .................. National Voter Registration Act................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Sept. 26, 1990 .... 55–42 No. 257 F 136 25906 

Sept. 19, 1990 7 ... S.110 .................. Family Planning Amendments ..................................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Sept. 26, 1990 .... 50–46 No. 256 F 136 25901 

Sept. 19, 1990 8 ... S.1224 ................ Motor Vehicle Fuel Effi ciency Act................................ 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Sept. 25, 1990 .... 57–42 No. 248 F 136 25642 

Oct. 12, 1990 9 ..... H.R.5114 ............ Foreign Operations Appropriations FY91................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Oct. 12, 1990 ...... 51–38 No. 270 F 136 28912 

102nd

Apr. 25, 1991 ....... S.429 .................. Protection Against Price-Fixing Act............................. 

motion to proceed Ford................................ May 7, 1991 ....... 61–37 No. 53 I 137 10003 

May 7, 1991 ........ S.429 .................. Protection Against Price-Fixing Act............................. Mitchell.......................... May 8, 1991 ....... 63–35 No. 54 I 137 10144 

June 6, 1991 ....... S.1204 ................ Surface Transportation Effi ciency Act......................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... June 11, 1991 ..... UC V 137 14071 

June 28, 1991 ..... S.1241 ................ Violent Crime Control Act............................................ Mitchell.......................... June 28, 1991 .... 41–58 No. 114 F 137 17091 July 8, 1991 ........ S.1241 ................ Violent Crime Control Act............................................ Mitchell.......................... July 10, 1991 ..... 56–43 No. 120 F 137 17519 July 9, 1991 ........ S.1241 ................ Violent Crime Control Act............................................ Mitchell.......................... July 10, 1991 ..... 71–27 No. 123 I 137 17570 

July 16, 1991 ...... S.250 .................. National Voter Registration Act................................... 

motion to proceed Ford................................ July 18, 1991 ..... 57–41 No. 134 F 137 18897 

July 17, 1991 ...... S.250 .................. National Voter Registration Act................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 18, 1991 ..... 59–40 No. 140 F 137 19006 
131

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

July 18, 1991 ...... H.R.2519 ............ VA, HUD Appropriations FY92.................................... 

S.Amdt.794 Mitchell.......................... July 18, 1991 ..... 57–40 No. 139 F 137 18980 

July 22, 1991 ...... S.1435 ................ International Security and Economic Cooperation 

Act motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... July 24, 1991 ..... 87–10 No. 143 I 137 19515 

July 25, 1991 ...... S.1435 ................ International Security and Economic Cooperation 

Act S.Amdt.827 Mitchell.......................... July 25, 1991 ..... 63–33 No. 151 I 137 19850 

July 25, 1991 ...... S.1435 ................ International Security and Economic Cooperation 

Act S.Amdt.833 Mitchell.......................... July 25, 1991 ..... 52–44 No. 150 F 137 19849 

July 26, 1991 ...... S.1554 ................ Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act........... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... July 29, 1991 ..... 96–1 No. 158 I 137 20227 

July 31, 1991 ...... S.1554 ................ Emergency Unemployment Compensation Act........... Mitchell.......................... Aug. 1, 1991 ....... no vote N 137 21213 Aug. 2, 1991 ........ S.1507 ................ Defense Authorization FY92–93.................................. 

S.Amdt.1038 Mitchell.......................... Aug. 2, 1991 ....... 58–40 No. 177 F 137 21621 

Aug. 2, 1991 ........ H.R.2707 ............ Labor, HHS Appropriations FY92................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Sept. 10, 1991 .... UC V 137 22349 

Sept. 19, 1991 ..... H.R.2686 ............ Interior Appropriations FY92....................................... 

S.Amdt.1165 Byrd............................... Sept. 19, 1991 .... 55–41 No. 199 F 137 23506 

Sept. 27, 1991 ..... S.5 ...................... Family and Medical Leave Act..................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Oct. 1, 1991 ........ UC V 137 24749 

Oct. 7, 1991 ......... S.1745 ................ Civil Rights Act of 1991................................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Oct. 8, 1991 ........ UC V 137 25919 

Oct. 16, 1991 ....... S.596 .................. Federal Facility Compliance Act.................................. 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Oct. 17, 1991 ...... 85–14 No. 226 I 137 26675 

Oct. 17, 1991 ....... S.1745 ................ Civil Rights Act of 1991................................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Oct. 22, 1991 ...... 93–4 No. 227 I 137 26954 

Oct. 25, 1991....... S.250 .................. National Voter Registration Act .................................. 

motion to proceed Ford................................ May 7, 1992 ....... 61–38 No. 86 I 138 10709 

Oct. 30, 1991 ....... S.1220 ................ National Energy Security Act ....................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Nov. 1, 1991 ....... 50–44 No. 242 F 137 29629 

Nov. 1, 1991 ........ S.543 .................. Deposit Insurance Reform Act ..................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Nov. 5, 1991 ....... UC V 137 30326 

Nov. 7, 1991 ........ S.543 .................. Deposit Insurance Reform Act ..................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Nov. 13, 1991 ..... 76–19 No. 249 I 137 31372 

Nov. 20, 1991 ...... H.J.Res.157........ Dire Emergency Supplemental Appropriations FY92 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Nov. 21, 1991 ..... UC V 137 33687 

Nov. 21, 1991 ...... S.Res.198 ........... Amendment to Committee on Foreign Relations 

Powers motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Nov. 22, 1991 ..... 51–43 No. 271 F 137 33851 

Nov. 23, 1991 ...... H.R.3595 ............ Medicaid Moratorium Amendments 1991................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Nov. 25, 1991 ..... UC V 137 34653 

Nov. 27, 1991 ...... H.R.3371 ............ Omnibus Crime Control Act......................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Nov. 27, 1991 ..... 49–38 No. 278 F 137 36128 

Nov. 27, 1991...... S.2 ...................... National Academic Report Card Act............................ 

motion to proceed Ford................................ Jan. 21, 1992 ..... 93–0 No. 1 I 138 75 

Jan. 31, 1992 ...... S.2166 ................ National Energy Security Act ....................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Feb. 4, 1992 ....... 90–5 No. 15 I 138 1312 
132

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Feb. 21, 1992 ...... S.479 .................. National Cooperative Research Act Extension............ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Feb. 25, 1992 ..... 98–0 No. 32 I 138 3265 

Feb. 26, 1992 ...... H.R.1426 ............ Lumbee Indian Tribe Recognition Act......................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Feb. 27, 1992 ..... 58–39 No. 35 F 138 3898 

Feb. 27, 1992 ...... S.1504 ................ Public Broadcasting Authorization.............................. 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Mar. 3, 1992 ....... 87–7 No. 36 I 138 4153 

Mar. 5, 1992 ........ H.R.3371 ............ Omnibus Crime Control Act......................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Mar. 19, 1992 ..... 54–43 No. 53 F 138 6127 

Mar. 24, 1992 ...... S.1696 ................ Montana National Forest Management Act................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Mar. 25, 1992 ..... UC V 138 6785 

Mar. 25, 1992 ...... S.2399 ................ Appropriations Category Reform................................. 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Mar. 26, 1992 ..... 50–48 No. 56 F 138 7010 

Mar. 26, 1992 ...... H.R.2507 ............ NIH Revitalization Amendments................................. 

motion to proceed Ford................................ Mar. 31, 1992 ..... 98–2 No. 60 I 138 7586 

Apr. 1, 1992 ......... S.Con.Res.89 ...... UN Conference on Environment and Development.... 

motion to proceed Ford................................ Apr. 2, 1992 ........ UC V 138 8045 

May 7, 1992 ........ S.250 .................. National Voter Registration Act................................... 

committee substitute Ford................................ May 12, 1992 ..... 58–40 No. 87 F 138 11003 

June 4, 1992 ....... S.1306 ................ ADAMHA Reorganization Act...................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... June 9, 1992 ...... 84–9 No. 117 I 138 13840 

June 9, 1992 ....... S.55 .................... Labor Relations and Railway Labor Disputes............. 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... June 11, 1992 ..... 55–41 No. 120 F 138 14541 

June 12, 1992 ..... S.55 .................... Labor Relations and Railway Labor Disputes............. Mitchell.......................... June 16, 1992 .... 57–42 No. 121 F 138 14875 June 30, 1992 ..... S.2733 ................ Federal Housing Regulatory Reform........................... 

S.Amdt.2447 Seymour......................... June 30, 1992 .... 56–39 No. 135 F 138 16986 

July 1, 1992 ........ S.2733 ................ Federal Housing Regulatory Reform........................... 

S.Amdt.2447 Seymour......................... July 1, 1992 ....... 56–39 No. 136 F 138 17321 

July 20, 1992 ...... H.R.776 .............. National Energy Effi ciency Act ................................... 

motion to proceed Baucus........................... July 23, 1992 ..... 58–33 No. 150 F 138 19050 

July 23, 1992 ...... S.2877 ................ Interstate Transportation of Municipal Waste Act..... Mitchell.......................... July 23, 1992 ..... no vote N 138 19051 

July 27, 1992 ...... H.R.776 .............. National Energy Effi ciency Act.................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... July 28, 1992 ..... 93–3 No. 154 I 138 19755 

Aug. 4, 1992 ........ H.R.4312 ............ Voting Rights Improvement Act................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Aug. 5, 1992 ....... UC V 138 21725 

Sept. 8, 1992 ....... S.640 .................. Product Liability Fairness............................................ 

motion to proceed Mikulski ......................... Sept. 10, 1992 .... 57–39 No. 197 F 138 24403 

Vote No. 197 reconsidered Sept. 10, 1992 .... 58–38 No. 199 F 138 24404 

Sept. 8, 1992 ....... PN855 ................ Judicial Nominee Edward E. Carnes........................... Mitchell.......................... Sept. 9, 1992 ...... 66–30 No. 192 I 138 24105 

Sept. 10, 1992 ..... S.2 ...................... National Academic Report Card Act............................ 

Disagree to House Amdt. Mitchell.......................... Sept. 15, 1992 .... 85–6 No. 203 I 138 24785 

Sept. 15, 1992 ..... H.R.5677 ............ Labor, HHS Appropriations FY93................................ 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Sept. 16, 1992 .... 56–38 No. 207 F 138 25242 
133

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Sept. 18, 1992 ..... S.12 .................... Cable Television Protection Act.................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Sept. 18, 1992 .... UC W 138 26102 

Sept. 26, 1992 ..... Treaty Doc. 

102–20 

START Treaty ................................................................ Mitchell.......................... Sept. 29, 1992 .... 87–6 No. 246 I 138 28646 

Sept. 30, 1992 ..... S.2899 ................ NIH Revitalization Amendments................................. 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Oct. 2, 1992 ........ 85–12 No. 263 I 138 30303 

Sept. 30, 1992 ..... H.R.3371 ............ Omnibus Crime Control Act......................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 2, 1992 ........ 55–43 No. 262 F 138 30287 

Sept. 30, 1992 ..... S.2 ...................... National Academic Report Card Act............................ 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 2, 1992 ........ 59–40 No. 261 F 138 30274 

Oct. 5, 1992 ......... H.R.776 .............. National Energy Effi ciency Act ................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 8, 1992 ........ 84–8 No. 266 I 138 34024 

Oct. 6, 1992 ......... H.R.11 ................ Enterprise Zone Tax Incentives Act............................. 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 8, 1992 ........ 80–10 No. 268 I 138 34104 

103rd

Feb. 3, 1993 ........ S.5 ...................... Family and Medical Leave Act..................................... Mitchell.......................... Feb. 4, 1993 ....... no vote N 139 2256 Mar. 3, 1993 ........ S.460 .................. National Voter Registration......................................... 

motion to proceed Ford................................ Mar. 5, 1993 ....... 52–36 No. 25 F 139 4304 

Mar. 4, 1993 ........ S.460 .................. National Voter Registration......................................... 

motion to proceed Mosley Braun................ Mar. 9, 1993 ....... 62–38 No. 26 I 139 4378 

Mar. 5, 1993 ........ S.460 .................. National Voter Registration......................................... 

motion to proceed Pryor.............................. Mar. 9, 1993 ....... no vote N 139 4378 

Mar. 15, 1993 ...... S.460 .................. National Voter Registration......................................... Ford................................ Mar. 17, 1993 ..... UC V 139 5217 

Mar. 15, 1993 ...... S.460 .................. National Voter Registration......................................... Ford................................ Mar. 16, 1993 ..... 59–41 No. 33 F 139 5112 

Apr. 1, 1993 ......... H.R.1335 ............ Emergency Supplemental Appropriations FY93......... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Apr. 2, 1993 ........ 55–43 No. 100 F 139 7481 

Apr. 2, 1993 ......... H.R.1335 ............ Emergency Supplemental Appropriations FY93......... 

committee substitute Ford................................ Apr. 3, 1993 ........ 52–37 No. 101 F 139 7562 

Apr. 3, 1993 ......... H.R.1335 ............ Emergency Supplemental Appropriations FY93......... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Apr. 5, 1993 ........ 49–29 No. 102 F 139 7615 

Apr. 5, 1993 ......... H.R.1335 ............ Emergency Supplemental Appropriations FY93......... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Apr. 21, 1993 ...... 56–43 No. 105 F 139 7951 

May 7, 1993 ........ H.R.2 .................. National Voter Registration......................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... May 11, 1993 ..... no vote N 139 9636 

May 7, 1993 ........ H.R.2 .................. National Voter Registration......................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... May 11, 1993 ..... 63–37 No. 117 I 139 9636 

June 9, 1993 ....... S.3 ...................... Campaign Finance Reform........................................... 

S.Amdt.366 Boren .............................. June 10, 1993 .... 53–41 No. 146 F 139 12375 

June 10, 1993 ..... S.3 ...................... Campaign Finance Reform........................................... 

S.Amdt.366 Mitchell.......................... June 16, 1993 .... 62–37 No. 154 I 139 12954 

June 10, 1993 ..... S.3 ...................... Campaign Finance Reform........................................... 

S.Amdt.366 Mitchell.......................... June 15, 1993 .... 52–45 No. 147 F 139 12661 

July 1, 1993 ........ S.185 .................. Hatch Act Reform.......................................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... July 13, 1993 ..... UC W 139 15340 

July 1, 1993 ........ S.185 .................. Hatch Act Reform.......................................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... July 13, 1993 ..... UC W 139 15340 

July 22, 1993 ...... S.919 .................. National Service Trust Act........................................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... July 27, 1993 ..... UC V 139 17106 
134

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

July 26, 1993 ...... S.919 .................. National Service Trust Act........................................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... July 27, 1993 ..... UC V 139 17106 

July 28, 1993 ...... S.919 .................. National Service Trust Act........................................... 

S.Amdt.709 Mitchell.......................... July 30, 1993 ..... UC V 139 17976 

July 28, 1993 ...... S.919 .................. National Service Trust Act........................................... 

S.Amdt.709 Mitchell.......................... July 29, 1993 ..... 59–41 No. 224 F 139 17800 

Oct. 6, 1993 ......... PN306 ................ Nominee Walter Dellinger............................................ Ford................................ Oct. 7, 1993 ........ UC V 139 23941 

Oct. 6, 1993 ......... PN306 ................ Nominee Walter Dellinger............................................ Ford................................ Oct. 7, 1993 ........ 59–39 No. 307 F 139 23915 

Oct. 20, 1993 ....... H.R.2520 ............ Interior Appropriations FY94....................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 21, 1993 ...... 53–41 No. 326 F 139 25852 

Oct. 21, 1993 ....... H.R.3167 ............ Unemployment Compensation Amendments.............. 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Oct. 21, 1993 ...... UC W 139 25876 

Oct. 21, 1993 ....... H.R.2520 ............ Interior Appropriations FY94....................................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Oct. 26, 1993 ...... 51–45 No. 329 F 139 26162 

Oct. 26, 1993 ....... H.R.2520 ............ Interior Appropriations FY94....................................... 

conference report Byrd............................... Oct. 28, 1993 ...... 54–44 No. 340 F 139 26625 

Oct. 28, 1993 ....... PN641 ................ Nominee Daniel L. Spiegel........................................... Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... 58–42 No. 349 F 139 27166 

Oct. 28, 1993 ....... PN579 ................ Nominee Thomas A. Loftus.......................................... Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... 58–42 No. 349 F 139 27166 

Oct. 28, 1993 ....... PN577 ................ Nominee Swanee G. Hunt............................................ Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... 58–42 No. 349 F 139 27166 

Oct. 28, 1993 ....... PN575 ................ Nominee Tobi T. Gati.................................................... Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... 58–42 No. 349 F 139 27166 

Oct. 28, 1993 ....... PN571 ................ Nominee Alan J. Blinken.............................................. Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... 58–42 No. 349 F 139 27166 

Nov. 3, 1993 ........ PN641 ................ Nominee Daniel L. Spiegel........................................... Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... UC W 139 27244 

Nov. 3, 1993 ........ PN579 ................ Nominee Thomas A. Loftus.......................................... Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... UC W 139 27244 

Nov. 3, 1993 ........ PN577 ................ Nominee Swanee G. Hunt............................................ Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... UC W 139 27244 

Nov. 3, 1993 ........ PN575 ................ Nominee Tobi T. Gati.................................................... Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... UC W 139 27244 

Nov. 3, 1993 ........ PN571 ................ Nominee Alan J. Blinken.............................................. Mitchell.......................... Nov. 3, 1993 ....... UC W 139 27244 

Nov. 5, 1993 ........ H.R.2520 ............ Interior Appropriations FY94....................................... 

conference report Wellstone....................... Nov. 9, 1993 ....... UC W 139 28219 

Nov. 19, 1993 ...... S.414 .................. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention ........................... 

S.Amdt.1218 Ford................................ Nov. 19, 1993 ..... 57–41 No. 390 F 139 30703 

Nov. 19, 1993 ...... PN451 ................ Nominee Janet A. Napolitano...................................... Mitchell.......................... Nov. 19, 1993 ..... 72–26 No. 388 I 139 30639 

Nov. 19, 1993 ...... S.414 .................. Brady Handgun Violence Prevention ........................... 

S.Amdt.1218 Metzenbaum.................. Nov. 19, 1993 ..... 57–42 No. 387 F 139 30620 

Nov. 23, 1993 ...... H.R.1025 ............ Brady Handgun Violence Prevention ........................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Nov. 24, 1993 ..... UC W 139 32281 

Nov. 23, 1993 ...... H.R.1025 ............ Brady Handgun Violence Prevention ........................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Nov. 24, 1993 ..... UC W 139 32281 

Feb. 7, 1994 ........ PN784 ................ Nominee M. Larry Lawrence ........................................ Pell................................. Feb. 8, 1994 ....... no vote N 140 1526 

Mar. 10, 1994 ...... S.4 ...................... National Competitiveness Act...................................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Mar. 15, 1994 ..... 56–42 No. 58 F 140 4830 

Mar. 11, 1994 ...... S.4 ...................... National Competitiveness Act...................................... 

committee substitute Mitchell.......................... Mar. 15, 1994 ..... UC V 140 4842 
135

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Mar. 23, 1994 ...... H.R.1804 ............ Goals 2000: Educate America....................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Mar. 25, 1994 ..... no vote N 140 6989 

Mar. 23, 1994 ...... H.R.1804 ............ Goals 2000: Educate America....................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Mar. 25, 1994 ..... 62–23 No. 85 I 140 6989 

Mar. 23, 1994 ...... H.R.3345 ............ Federal Workforce Restructuring ................................. 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Mar. 24, 1994 ..... 63–36 No. 76 I 140 6291 

Mar. 23, 1994 ...... H.R.3345 ............ Federal Workforce Restructuring ................................. 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Mar. 24, 1994 ..... 58–41 No. 75 F 140 6291 

Mar. 25, 1994 ...... S.21 .................... California Desert Protection Act.................................. 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... Apr. 11, 1994 ...... UC W 140 7042 

Mar. 25, 1994 ...... H.R.1804 ............ Goals 2000: Educate America....................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Mar. 25, 1994 ..... no vote N 140 6989 

Mar. 25, 1994 ...... H.R.1804 ............ Goals 2000: Educate America....................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Mar. 25, 1994 ..... no vote N 140 6989 

Apr. 12, 1994 ....... PN898 ................ Nominee Sam W. Brown............................................... Mitchell.......................... Apr. 13, 1994 ...... UC W 140 7272 

Apr. 12, 1994 ....... PN683 ................ Judicial nominee Rosemary Barkett............................ Mitchell.......................... Apr. 13, 1994 ...... UC W 140 7297 

May 19, 1994 ...... PN898 ................ Nominee Sam W. Brown............................................... Ford................................ May 25, 1994 ..... 54–44 No. 131 F 140 11527 

May 19, 1994 ...... PN1159 .............. Nominee Derek Shearer............................................... Ford................................ May 24, 1994 ..... 62–36 No. 129 I 140 11519 

May 23, 1994 ...... PN1159 .............. Nominee Derek Shearer............................................... Mitchell.......................... May 24, 1994 ..... no vote N 140 11519 

May 23, 1994 ...... PN898 ................ Nominee Sam W. Brown............................................... Mitchell.......................... May 25, 1994 ..... 56–42 No. 132 F 140 11707 

June 24, 1994 ..... S.687 .................. Product Liability Fairness Act..................................... Mitchell.......................... June 28, 1994 .... 54–44 No. 169 F 140 14707 June 27, 1994 ..... S.687 .................. Product Liability Fairness Act..................................... Rockefeller..................... June 29, 1994 .... 57–41 No. 170 F 140 14967 

July 1, 1994 ........ S.55 .................... Striker Replacement Act ............................................... 

motion to proceed Mitchell.......................... July 12, 1994 ..... 53–47 No. 188 F 140 15863 

July 11, 1994 ...... S.55 .................... Striker Replacement Act ............................................... 

motion to proceed Ford................................ July 13, 1994 ..... 53–46 No. 189 F 140 16295 

Aug. 25, 1994 ...... H.R.3355 ............ Violent Crime Control................................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Aug. 25, 1994 ..... 61–38 No. 294 I 140 24114 

Sept. 20, 1994 ..... S.21 .................... California Desert Protection ......................................... 

motion to disagree to House Amdts. Mitchell.......................... Sept. 22, 1994 .... 73–20 No. 305 I 140 25454 

Sept. 20, 1994 ..... S.3 ...................... Campaign Spending Limit ............................................ 

motion to disagree to House Amdts. Mitchell.......................... Sept. 22, 1994 .... 96–2 No. 303 I 140 25322 

Sept. 21, 1994 ..... S.3 ...................... Campaign Spending Limit ............................................ 

motion to disagree to House Amdts. Conrad........................... Sept. 22, 1994 .... no vote N 140 25322 

Sept. 22, 1994 ..... S.3 ...................... Campaign Spending Limit ............................................ 

motion to request conference Ford................................ Sept. 27, 1994 .... 57–43 No. 309 F 140 25985 

Sept. 28, 1994 ..... S.3 ...................... Campaign Spending Limit ............................................ 

motion to request conference Boren .............................. Sept. 30, 1994 .... 52–46 No. 314 F 140 26962 

Sept. 30, 1994 ..... PN1354 .............. Judicial Nominee H. Lee Sarokin................................ Levin.............................. Oct. 4, 1994 ........ 83–12 No. 318 I 140 27482 

Sept. 30, 1994 ..... PN876 ................ Nominee Ricki R. Tigert (FDIC Chair)........................ Levin.............................. Oct. 3, 1994 ........ UC W 140 27142 

Sept. 30, 1994 ..... PN876 ................ Nominee Ricki R. Tigert (FDIC Member).................... Levin.............................. Oct. 3, 1994 ........ 63–32 No. 316 I 140 27142 

Oct. 3, 1994 ......... S.349 .................. Lobbying Disclosure Act............................................... 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 6, 1994 ........ 52–46 No. 322 F 140 28188 

Oct. 3, 1994 ......... H.R.6 .................. Elementary and Secondary Education Act.................. 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 5, 1994 ........ 75–24 No. 320 I 140 27850 

Oct. 4, 1994 ......... S.349 .................. Lobbying Disclosure Act............................................... 

conference report Ford................................ Oct. 7, 1994 ........ 55–42 No. 325 F 140 28774 

Oct. 4, 1994 ......... H.R.6 .................. Elementary and Secondary Education Act.................. 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 5, 1994 ........ no vote N 140 27850 
136

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Oct. 7, 1994 ......... S.21 .................... California Desert Protection Act.................................. 

conference report Mitchell.......................... Oct. 8, 1994 ........ 68–23 No. 326 I 140 29474 

Oct. 7, 1994 ......... PN811 ................ Nominee Lt. General Edward P. Barry, Jr................... Mitchell.......................... Oct. 8, 1994 ........ UC W 140 29486 Oct. 7, 1994 ......... PN48 .................. Nominee Col. Claude M. Bolton, Jr.............................. Mitchell.......................... Oct. 8, 1994 ........ UC W 140 29486 Oct. 7, 1994 ......... PN1160 .............. Nominee Lt. General Buster C. Glosson...................... Mitchell.......................... Oct. 7, 1994 ........ UC V 140 28948 

104th

Jan. 17, 1995 ...... S.1 ...................... Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 1995.......................... Dole................................ Jan. 19, 1995 ..... 54–44 No. 27 F 141 1701 

Jan. 18, 1995 ...... S.1 ...................... Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 1995.......................... Dole................................ Jan. 19, 1995 ..... UC V 141 1760 

Jan. 19, 1995 ...... S.1 ...................... Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 1995.......................... Dole................................ Jan. 19, 1995 ..... UC V 141 1701 

Jan. 25, 1995 ...... S.1 ...................... Unfunded Mandate Reform Act 1995.......................... Lott ................................. Jan. 27, 1995 ..... no vote N 141 2751 

Feb. 14, 1995 ...... H.J.Res.1............ Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment............. Dole................................ Feb. 16, 1995 ..... 57–42 No. 74 F 141 5121 

Feb. 15, 1995 ...... H.J.Res.1............ Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment............. Dole................................ Feb. 16, 1995 ..... UC V 141 5164 

Feb. 15, 1995 ...... H.J.Res.1............ Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment............. Dole................................ Feb. 16, 1995 ..... UC V 141 5164 

Mar. 9, 1995 ........ H.R.889 .............. Emergency Supplemental FY95................................... 

S.Amdt.331 Dole................................ Mar. 15, 1995 ..... 58–39 No. 103 F 141 7872 

Mar. 10, 1995 ...... H.R.889 .............. Emergency Supplemental FY95................................... 

S.Amdt.331 Gregg .............................. Mar. 15, 1995 ..... UC V 141 7916 

Mar. 20, 1995 ...... S.4 ...................... Line Item Veto............................................................... 

S.Amdt.347 McCain ........................... Mar. 22, 1995 ..... UC V 141 8604 

Mar. 21, 1995 ...... S.4 ...................... Line Item Veto............................................................... 

S.Amdt.347 McCain ........................... Mar. 22, 1995 ..... UC V 141 8604 

Mar. 31, 1995 ...... H.R.831 .............. Health Insurance Tax Deduction................................. 

conference report Dole................................ Apr. 3, 1995 ........ 83–0 No. 126 I 141 10041 

Apr. 4, 1995 ......... H.R.1158 ............ Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions........... 

S.Amdt.420 Dole................................ Apr. 6, 1995 ........ 56–44 No. 127 F 141 10768 

Apr. 6, 1995 ......... H.R.1158 ............ Supplemental Appropriations and Rescissions........... 

S.Amdt.420 Dole................................ Apr. 6, 1995 ........ no vote N 141 10847 

May 2, 1995 ........ H.R.956 .............. Product Liability Reform.............................................. 

S.Amdt.596 Gorton............................ May 4, 1995 ....... 47–52 No. 152 F 141 11913 

May 2, 1995 ........ H.R.956 .............. Product Liability Reform.............................................. 

S.Amdt.596 Gorton............................ May 4, 1995 ....... 46–53 No. 151 F 141 11910 

May 5, 1995 ........ H.R.956 .............. Product Liability Reform.............................................. 

S.Amdt.690 Coverdell........................ May 9, 1995 ....... 60–38 No. 156 I 141 12066 

May 5, 1995 ........ H.R.956 .............. Product Liability Reform.............................................. 

S.Amdt.690 Coverdell........................ May 8, 1995 ....... 43–49 No. 153 F 141 12012 

May 8, 1995 ........ H.R.956 .............. Product Liability Reform.............................................. 

S.Amdt.690 Hutchison...................... May 9, 1995 ....... no vote N 141 12066 

May 10, 1995 ...... S.534 .................. Solid Waste Disposal..................................................... 

committee substitute Specter........................... May 12, 1995 ..... 50–47 No. 165 F 141 12782 

May 15, 1995 ...... S.395 .................. Alaska Power Administration...................................... Lott ................................. May 16, 1995 ..... no vote N 141 13013 

June 5, 1995 ....... S.735 .................. Anti-terrorism Bill........................................................ 

S.Amdt.1199 Dole................................ June 6, 1995 ...... UC V 141 14979 
137

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

June 12, 1995 ..... S.652 .................. Telecommunications Act of 1996.................................. Lott ................................. June 14, 1995 .... 89–11 No. 259 I 141 15989 

June 13, 1995 ..... S.652 .................. Telecommunications Act of 1996.................................. Cochran .......................... June 14, 1995 .... no vote N 141 15989 

June 15, 1995 ..... S.440 .................. National Highway System Designation....................... 

motion to proceed Chafee............................ June 16, 1995 .... UC W 141 16319 

June 20, 1995 ..... PN245 ................ Nominee Henry W. Foster............................................ Daschle.......................... June 22, 1995 .... 57–43 No. 280 F 141 16918 

June 20, 1995 ..... PN245 ................ Nominee Henry W. Foster............................................ Daschle.......................... June 21, 1995 .... 57–43 No. 273 F 141 16711 

July 12, 1995 ...... S.343 .................. Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act....................... 

S.Amdt.1487 Lott ................................. July 17, 1995 ..... 48–46 No. 309 F 141 19105 

July 14, 1995 ...... S.343 .................. Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act....................... 

S.Amdt.1487 Dole................................ July 18, 1995 ..... 53–47 No. 311 F 141 19262 

July 17, 1995 ...... S.343 .................. Comprehensive Regulatory Reform Act....................... 

S.Amdt.1487 Hatch............................. July 20, 1995 ..... 58–40 No. 315 F 141 19661 

July 26, 1995 ...... S.961 .................. Foreign Assistance Authorization FY96–97................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 27, 1995 ..... UC V 141 20697 

July 26, 1995 ...... S.908 .................. Foreign Relations Revitalization FY95........................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 28, 1995 ..... UC V 141 20953 

July 28, 1995 ...... S.908 .................. Foreign Relations Revitalization Act FY95................. Dole................................ Aug. 1, 1995 ....... 55–45 No. 345 F 141 21250 

July 31, 1995 ...... S.908 .................. Foreign Relations Revitalization Act FY95................. Dole................................ Aug. 1, 1995 ....... 55–45 No. 346 F 141 21269 

Aug. 4, 1995 ........ S.1026 ................ National Defense Authorization FY96......................... Dole................................ Sept. 6, 1995 ...... no vote N 141 23529 

Aug. 9, 1995 ........ S.1026 ................ National Defense Authorization FY96......................... Thurmond...................... Sept. 6, 1995 ...... no vote N 141 23529 

Sept. 11, 1995 ..... H.R.4 .................. Welfare Reform Bill ....................................................... 

S.Amdt.2280 Dole................................ Sept. 19, 1995 .... no vote N 141 25618 

Oct. 11, 1995 ....... H.R.927 .............. Cuba Sanctions .............................................................. 

S.Amdt.2898 Helms............................. Oct. 17, 1995 ...... 59–36 No. 489 F 141 28069 

Oct. 11, 1995 ....... H.R.927 .............. Cuba Sanctions .............................................................. 

S.Amdt.2898 Dole................................ Oct. 12, 1995 ...... 56–37 No. 488 F 141 27759 

Oct. 13, 1995 ....... H.R.927 .............. Cuba Sanctions .............................................................. 

S.Amdt.2898 Dole................................ Oct. 18, 1995 ...... 98–0 No. 491 I 141 28283 

Dec. 6, 1995 ........ S.J.Res.31 .......... Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment................ 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Dec. 7, 1995 ....... UC W 141 35893 

Dec. 15, 1995 ...... H.R.2127 ............ Department of Labor Appropriations FY96................. 

motion to proceed Dole................................ Dec. 22, 1995 ..... no vote N 141 38464 

Jan. 31, 1996 ...... S.1541 ................ Farm Bill....................................................................... 

S.Amdt.3184 Lott ................................. Feb. 6, 1996 ....... 59–34 No. 9 F 142 2371 

Jan. 31, 1996 ...... S.1541 ................ Farm Bill....................................................................... Craig.............................. Feb. 1, 1996 ....... 53–45 No. 7 F 142 2005 

Feb. 23, 1996 ...... H.R.2546 ............ D.C. Appropriations FY96............................................ 

conference report Lott ................................. Feb. 27, 1996 ..... 54–44 No. 20 F 142 2850 

Feb. 27, 1996 ...... H.R.2546 ............ D.C. Appropriations FY96............................................ 

conference report Lott ................................. Feb. 29, 1996 ..... 52–42 No. 21 F 142 3459 

Feb. 29, 1996 ...... H.R.2546 ............ D.C. Appropriations FY96............................................ 

conference report Lott ................................. Mar. 5, 1996 ....... 53–43 No. 23 F 142 3604 

Mar. 7, 1996 ........ S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Mar. 12, 1996 ..... 53–47 No. 26 F 142 4341 

Mar. 7, 1996 ........ H.R.2546 ............ D.C. Appropriations FY96............................................ 

conference report Lott ................................. Mar. 12, 1996 ..... 56–44 No. 25 F 142 4341 

Mar. 11, 1996 ...... S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Mar. 13, 1996 ..... 53–47 No. 29 F 142 4683 

Mar. 12, 1996 ...... S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Burns............................. Mar. 14, 1996 ..... 51–46 No. 34 F 142 4898 
138

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Mar. 15, 1996 ...... H.R.956 .............. Product Liability Reform.............................................. 

conference report Kyl.................................. Mar. 21, 1996 ..... no vote N 142 5782 

Mar. 15, 1996 ...... S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Kyl.................................. Mar. 21, 1996 ..... 52–46 No. 47 F 142 5782 

Mar. 18, 1996 ...... S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Mar. 20, 1996 ..... 53–47 No. 45 F 142 5459 

Mar. 18, 1996 ...... H.R.956 .............. Product Liability Reform.............................................. 

conference report Lott ................................. Mar. 20, 1996 ..... 60–40 No. 44 I 142 5459 

Mar. 25, 1996 ...... H.R.1296 ............ Presidio Properties........................................................ 

S.Amdt.3564 Murkowski..................... Mar. 27, 1996 ..... 51–49 No. 54 F 142 6495 

Mar. 26, 1996 ...... H.R.1296 ............ Presidio Properties........................................................ 

S.Amdt.3573 Daschle.......................... Mar. 28, 1996 ..... 55–45 No. 58 F 142 6794 

Mar. 29, 1996 ...... S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Apr. 16, 1996 ...... 51–46 No. 61 F 142 7546 

Apr. 15, 1996 ....... S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Simpson......................... Apr. 17, 1996 ...... UC V 142 7776 

Apr. 16, 1996 ....... S.Res.227 ........... Whitewater Extension.................................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Apr. 17, 1996 ...... UC V 142 7776 

Apr. 19, 1996 ....... S.J.Res.21 .......... Congressional Term Limits Constitutional 

Amendment committee substitute Dole................................ Apr. 23, 1996 ...... 58–42 No. 79 F 142 8425 

Apr. 24, 1996 ....... S.1664 ................ Immigration and Nationality Act................................. 

S.Amdt.3667 Dorgan........................... Apr. 24, 1996 ...... no vote N 142 8703 

Apr. 25, 1996 ....... S.1664 ................ Immigration and Nationality Act................................. 

S.Amdt.3743 Dole................................ Apr. 29, 1996 ...... no vote N 142 9397 

Apr. 25, 1996 ....... S.1664 ................ Immigration and Nationality Act................................. 

S.Amdt.3743 Dole................................ Apr. 29, 1996 ...... 91–0 No. 90 I 142 9397 

Apr. 29, 1996 ....... S.1664 ................ Immigration and Nationality Act................................. Simpson......................... May 2, 1996 ....... 100–0 No. 107 I 142 10065 

May 3, 1996 ........ H.R.2937 ............ White House Travel Offi ce............................................ Dole................................ May 7, 1996 ....... 52–44 No. 109 F 142 10255 

May 6, 1996 ........ H.R.2937 ............ White House Travel Offi ce............................................ Dole................................ May 8, 1996 ....... 53–45 No. 110 F 142 10412 

May 8, 1996 ........ H.R.2937 ............ White House Travel Offi ce............................................ 

S.Amdt.3960 Dole................................ May 9, 1996 ....... 52–44 No. 111 F 142 10664 

May 9, 1996 ........ H.R.2937 ............ White House Travel Offi ce............................................ 

S.Amdt.3961 Dole................................ May 14, 1996 ..... 54–43 No. 112 F 

May 23, 1996 ...... S.1635 ................ Missile Defense System................................................ 

motion to proceed Dole................................ June 4, 1996 ...... 53–46 No. 157 F 142 12870 

June 20, 1996 ..... S.1219 ................ Campaign Finance Reform........................................... Lott ................................. June 25, 1996 .... 54–46 No. 168 F 142 15128 

June 24, 1996 ..... S.1745 ................ National Defense Authorization FY97......................... McCain ........................... June 26, 1996 .... 52–46 No. 170 F 142 15367 

June 25, 1996 ..... S.1745 ................ National Defense Authorization FY97......................... Grams............................ June 28, 1996 .... 53–43 No. 181 F 142 16006 

June 27, 1996 ..... S.1745 ................ National Defense Authorization FY97......................... Lott ................................. June 28, 1996 .... no vote W 142 16080 June 28, 1996 ..... S.1788 ................ National Right to Work Act.......................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 10, 1996 ..... 31–68 No. 188 F 142 16470 
139

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

July 11, 1996 ...... S.1936 ................ Nuclear Waste Policy Act.............................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 16, 1996 ..... 65–34 No. 193 I 142 17148 

July 11, 1996 ...... S.1894 ................ Defense Appropriations FY97...................................... Stevens ........................... July 17, 1996 ..... UC V 142 17435 

July 16, 1996 ...... S.1936 ................ Nuclear Waste Policy Act.............................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 24, 1996 ..... UC V 142 18718 

Sept. 5, 1996 ....... H.R.3396 ............ Defense of Marriage...................................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 5, 1996 ...... no vote W 142 22195 

Sept. 26, 1996 ..... H.R.2202 ............ Immigration Reform..................................................... 

conference report Lott ................................. Oct. 3, 1996 ........ no vote N 142 27276 

Sept. 30, 1996 ..... H.R.3539 ............ FAA Reauthorization.................................................... 

conference report Lott ................................. Oct. 3, 1996 ........ 66–31 No. 304 I 142 27147 

Sept. 30, 1996 ..... H.R.3539 ............ FAA Reauthorization.................................................... 

motion to proceed to conference report Lott ................................. Sept. 30, 1996 .... no vote N 142 26737 

105th

Mar. 20, 1997 ...... S.104 .................. Nuclear Waste Policy Act.............................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Apr. 8, 1997 ........ UC W 143 4801 

Apr. 7, 1997 ......... S.104 .................. Nuclear Waste Policy Act.............................................. 

motion to proceed Nickles........................... Apr. 8, 1997 ........ UC W 143 4801 

Apr. 9, 1997 ......... S.104 .................. Nuclear Waste Policy Act.............................................. 

S.Amdt.26 Lott ................................. Apr. 10, 1997 ...... UC W 143 5175 

Apr. 25, 1997 ....... S.543 .................. Volunteer Protection Act............................................... 

motion to proceed Smith............................. Apr. 29, 1997 ...... 53–46 No. 52 F 143 6605 

Apr. 28, 1997 ....... S.543 .................. Volunteer Protection Act............................................... 

motion to proceed Coverdell........................ Apr. 30, 1997 ...... 55–44 No. 53 F 143 6765 

Apr. 29, 1997 ....... S.543 .................. Volunteer Protection Act............................................... 

motion to proceed Coverdell........................ May 1, 1997 ....... no vote V 143 6938 

Apr. 29, 1997 ....... S.543 .................. Volunteer Protection Act............................................... 

motion to proceed Coverdell........................ May 1, 1997 ....... UC V 143 6938 

May 5, 1997 ........ S.672 .................. Supplemental Appropriations FY97............................ Sessions......................... May 7, 1997 ....... 100–0 No. 57 I 143 7321 

May 13, 1997 ...... S.4 ...................... Family Friendly Workplace Act.................................... 

modifi ed committee amendment Lott ................................. May 15, 1997 ..... 53–47 No. 68 F 143 8318 

June 2, 1997 ....... S.4 ...................... Family Friendly Workplace Act.................................... 

modifi ed committee amendment Craig.............................. June 4, 1997 ...... 51–47 No. 93 F 143 9892 

June 27, 1997 ..... S.936 .................. Defense Authorization FY98........................................ Lott ................................. July 8, 1997 ....... 46–45 No. 161 F 143 13484 

July 8, 1997 ........ S.936 .................. Defense Authorization FY98........................................ Lott ................................. July 10, 1997 ..... no vote N 143 13960 

July 11, 1997 ...... PN231 ................ Nominee Joel I. Klein................................................... Nickles........................... July 14, 1997 ..... 78–11 No. 174 I 143 14352 

July 23, 1997 ...... S.39 .................... International Dolphin Conservation............................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 25, 1997 ..... UC V 143 15808 

Sept. 3, 1997 ....... S.830 .................. FDA Modernization Act................................................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 5, 1997 ...... 89–5 No. 220 I 143 17851 

Sept. 4, 1997 ....... S.830 .................. FDA Modernization Act................................................ 

motion to proceed Enzi................................ Sept. 5, 1997 ...... no vote N 143 17851 

Sept. 11, 1997 ..... S.830 .................. FDA Modernization Act................................................ 

S.Amdt.1130 Lott ................................. Sept. 16, 1997 .... 94–4 No. 239 I 143 18854 

Sept. 18, 1997 ..... S.830 .................. FDA Modernization Act................................................ Jeffords.......................... Sept. 23, 1997 .... UC V 143 19652 

Sept. 24, 1997 ..... S.1156 ................ D.C Appropriations FY98............................................. 

S.Amdt.1249 Faircloth........................ Sept. 30, 1997 .... 58–41 No. 260 F 143 20733 
140

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Oct. 3, 1997 ......... S.1156 ................ D.C. Appropriations FY98............................................ 

S.Amdt.1253 Coverdell........................ Oct. 7, 1997 ........ 99–1 No. 268 I 143 21353 

Oct. 3, 1997 ......... S.25 .................... Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997................... Coverdell........................ Oct. 7, 1997 ........ 53–47 No. 267 F 143 21346 

Oct. 3, 1997 ......... S.25 .................... Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997................... 

S.Amdt.1258 Coverdell........................ Oct. 7, 1997 ........ 52–48 No. 266 F 143 21345 

Oct. 6, 1997 ......... S.25 .................... Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997................... Daschle.......................... Oct. 8, 1997 ........ 52–47 No. 270 F 143 21620 

Oct. 7, 1997 ......... S.25 .................... Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997................... 

S.Amdt.1258 Lott ................................. Oct. 9, 1997 ........ 51–48 No. 274 F 143 22062 

Oct. 7, 1997 ......... S.25 .................... Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1997................... Daschle.......................... Oct. 9, 1997 ........ 52–47 No. 273 F 143 22061 

Oct. 21, 1997 ....... S.1173 ................ Surface Transportation Act.......................................... 

modifi ed committee amendment Lott ................................. Oct. 23, 1997 ...... 48–50 No. 277 F 143 22641 

Oct. 21, 1997 ....... S.1173 ................ Surface Transportation Act.......................................... 

modifi ed committee amendment Lott ................................. Oct. 23, 1997 ...... 48–52 No. 275 F 143 22637 

Oct. 22, 1997 ....... S.1173 ................ Surface Transportation Act.......................................... 

modifi ed committee amendment Chafee............................ Oct. 24, 1997 ...... 43–49 No. 278 F 143 23349 

Oct. 24, 1997 ....... S.1173 ................ Surface Transportation Act.......................................... 

modifi ed committee amendment Lott ................................. Oct. 28, 1997 ...... 52–48 No. 282 F 143 23450 

Oct. 29, 1997 ....... H.R.2646 ............ Education Savings Account.......................................... Lott ................................. Oct. 31, 1997 ...... 56–41 No. 288 F 143 24088 

Oct. 29, 1997 ....... H.R.1119 ............ Defense Authorization FY98....................................... 

motion to proceed to conference report Lott ................................. Oct. 31, 1997 ...... 93–2 No. 289 I 143 24090 

Oct. 31, 1997 ....... S.1269 ................ Reciprocal Trade Agreement Act of 1997..................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Nov. 4, 1997 ....... 69–31 No. 292 I 143 24228 

Oct. 31, 1997 ....... H.R.2646 ............ Education Savings Account.......................................... Coverdell........................ Nov. 4, 1997 ....... 56–44 No. 291 F 143 24223 

Feb. 5, 1998 ........ PN622 ................ Nominee David Satcher................................................ Lott ................................. Feb. 10, 1998 ..... 75–23 No. 8 I 144 1079 

Feb. 5, 1998 ........ S.1601 ................ Human Cloning Prohibition Act................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Feb. 11, 1998...... 42–54 No. 10 F 144 1147 

Feb. 24, 1998 ...... S.1663 ................ Campaign Finance Reform........................................... Burns............................. Feb. 26, 1998 ..... 45–54 No. 17 F 144 2016 

Feb. 24, 1998 ...... S.1663 ................ Campaign Finance Reform........................................... 

S.Amdt.1646 Daschle.......................... Feb. 26, 1998 ..... 51–48 No. 16 F 144 2016 

Feb. 24, 1998 ...... S.1663 ................ Campaign Finance Reform........................................... 

S.Amdt.1647 Daschle.......................... Feb. 25, 1998 ..... no vote N 144 1900 

Mar. 6, 1998 ........ S.1173 ................ Surface Transportation Act.......................................... 

S.Amdt.1676 Lott ................................. Mar. 11, 1998 ..... 96–3 No. 28 I 144 3216 

Mar. 13, 1998 ...... H.R.2646 ............ Education Savings Act.................................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Mar. 17, 1998 ..... 74–24 No. 34 I 144 3741 

Mar. 16, 1998 ...... H.R.2646 ............ Education Savings Act.................................................. 

motion to proceed Roth ................................ Mar. 17, 1998 ..... no vote N 144 3741 

Mar. 18, 1998 ...... H.R.2646 ............ Education Savings Act.................................................. Lott ................................. Mar. 26, 1998 ..... 58–42 No. 46 F 144 4791 

Mar. 18, 1998 ...... H.R.2646 ............ Education Savings Act.................................................. Lott ................................. Mar. 19, 1998 ..... 55–44 No. 38 F 144 4192 

Mar. 26, 1998 ...... H.R.2646 ............ Education Savings Act.................................................. Lott ................................. Mar. 27, 1998 ..... UC V 144 5001 

May 11, 1998 ...... S.1873 ................ American Missile Protection Act.................................. 

motion to proceed Cochran .......................... May 13, 1998 ..... 59–41 No. 131 F 144 8940 
141

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

May 14, 1998 ...... S.1415 ................ Universal Tobacco Settlement Act ................................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. May 15, 1998 ..... UC W 144 9412 

May 22, 1998 ...... H.R.1270 ............ Nuclear Waste Policy Act.............................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. June 2, 1998 ...... 56–39 No. 148 F 144 10803 

June 4, 1998 ....... S.1415 ................ Universal Tobacco Settlement Act ................................ 

 modifi ed committee substitute Daschle.......................... June 9, 1998 ...... 42–56 No. 150 F 144 11348 

June 5, 1998 ....... S.1415 ................ Universal Tobacco Settlement Act ................................ 

modifi ed committee substitute Conrad........................... June 10, 1998 .... 43–55 No. 153 F 144 11713 

June 9, 1998 ....... S.1415 ................ Universal Tobacco Settlement Act ................................ 

modifi ed committee substitute Daschle.......................... June 11, 1998 ..... 43–56 No. 156 F 144 12111 

June 17, 1998 ..... S.1415 ................ Universal Tobacco Settlement Act ................................ 

modifi ed committee substitute Lott ................................. June 17, 1998 .... 57–42 No. 161 F 144 12584 

June 19, 1998 ..... S.2057 ................ Defense Authorization FY99........................................ Warner........................... June 23, 1998 .... UC V 144 13358 

June 26, 1998 ..... S.648 .................. Product Liability Reform Act........................................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 7, 1998 ....... 71–24 No. 184 I 144 14589 

July 7, 1998 ........ S.648 .................. Product Liability Reform Act........................................ 

S.Amdt.3064 Lott ................................. July 9, 1998 ....... 51–47 No. 188 F 144 14789 

July 9, 1998 ........ S.2271 ................ Property Rights Implementation................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 13, 1998 ..... 52–42 No. 197 F 144 15124 

July 17, 1998 ...... H.R.4112 ............ Legislative Branch Appropriations FY99.................... Lott ................................. July 21, 1998 ..... 83–16 No. 213 I 144 16451 

Sept. 3, 1998 ....... S.1301 ................ Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act.............................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 9, 1998 ...... 99–1 No. 263 I 144 19681 

Sept. 3, 1998 ....... S.1873 ................ American Missile Protection Act.................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 9, 1998 ...... 59–41 No. 262 F 144 19645 

Sept. 8, 1998 ....... S.2237 ................ Interior Appropriations FY99....................................... 

S.Amdt.3554 Lott ................................. Sept. 10, 1998 .... 52–48 No. 264 F 144 19863 

Sept. 9, 1998 ....... S.1301 ................ Consumer Bankruptcy Reform Act.............................. 

S.Amdt.3559 Lott ................................. Sept. 11, 1998 .... UC V 144 20061 

Sept. 9, 1998 ....... S.1645 ................ Child Custody Protection Act....................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 11, 1998 .... 97–0 No. 265 I 144 20056 

Sept. 10, 1998 ..... S.1981 ................ Truth in Employment Act............................................. 

motion to proceed Sessions......................... Sept. 14, 1998 .... 52–42 No. 266 F 144 20147 

Sept. 18, 1998 ..... S.1645 ................ Child Custody Protection Act....................................... 

committee substitute Nickles........................... Sept. 22, 1998 .... 54–45 No. 282 F 144 21093 

Sept. 22, 1998 ..... S.2176 ................ Federal Vacancies Reform Act...................................... 

motion to proceed Grassley......................... Sept. 24, 1998 .... 96–1 No. 285 I 144 21744 

Sept. 24, 1998 ..... S.2176 ................ Federal Vacancies Reform Act...................................... Lott ................................. Sept. 28, 1998 .... 53–38 No. 289 F 144 22526 

Sept. 25, 1998 ..... S.442 .................. Internet Tax Freedom Act ............................................. 

motion to proceed McCain ........................... Sept. 29, 1998 .... 89–6 No. 292 I 144 22695 

Oct. 1, 1998 ......... H.R.10 ................ Financial Services Act ................................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Oct. 5, 1998 ........ 93–0 No. 297 I 144 23280 

Oct. 2, 1998 ......... S.442 .................. Internet Tax Freedom Act ............................................. McCain ........................... Oct. 7, 1998 ........ 94–4 No. 302 I 144 23917 

Oct. 7, 1998 ......... H.R.2431 ............ Freedom From Religious Persecution Act .................... 

motion to proceed McCain ........................... Oct. 8, 1998 ........ UC V 144 24484 

106th

Mar. 4, 1999 ........ S.280 .................. Education Flexibility Act.............................................. 

S.Amdt.31 Lott ................................. Mar. 8, 1999 ....... 54–41 No. 34 F 145 3855 
142

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Mar. 5, 1999 ........ S.280 .................. Education Flexibility Act.............................................. 

S.Amdt.31 Lott ................................. Mar. 9, 1999 ....... 55–39 No. 35 F 145 3917 

Mar. 8, 1999 ........ S.280 .................. Education Flexibility Act.............................................. 

S.Amdt.37 Lott ................................. Mar. 10, 1999 ..... 55–44 No. 37 F 145 3999 

Mar. 8, 1999 ........ S.280 .................. Education Flexibility Act.............................................. 

motion to recommit Murray........................... Mar. 10, 1999 ..... 44–55 No. 36 F 145 3999 

Mar. 9, 1999 ........ S.280 .................. Education Flexibility Act.............................................. 

S.Amdt.37 Lott ................................. Mar. 10, 1999 ..... UC W 145 4000 

Mar. 19, 1999 ...... S.544 .................. Emergency Supplemental FY99................................... 

S.Amdt.124 Lott ................................. Mar. 23, 1999 ..... 55–44 No. 55 F 145 5159 

Apr. 20, 1999 ....... S.557 .................. Budget Process Reform................................................. 

S.Amdt.254 Allard............................. Apr. 22, 1999 ...... 54–45 No. 90 F 145 7243 

Apr. 22, 1999 ....... S.96 .................... Y2K Act.......................................................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Apr. 26, 1999 ...... 94–0 No. 91 I 145 7378 

Apr. 27, 1999 ....... S.96 .................... Y2K Act.......................................................................... 

S.Amdt.267 Lott ................................. Apr. 29, 1999 ...... 52–47 No. 95 F 145 7920 

Apr. 28, 1999 ....... S.557 .................. Budget Process Reform................................................. 

S Amdt.255 Lott ................................. Apr. 30, 1999 ...... 49–44 No. 96 F 145 8011 

Apr. 28, 1999 ....... S.96 .................... Y2K Act.......................................................................... 

motion to recommit Kennedy......................... Apr. 28, 1999 ...... no vote N 145 7641 

May 14, 1999 ...... S.96 .................... Y2K Act.......................................................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. May 18, 1999 ..... 53–45 No. 120 F 145 9849 

June 7, 1999 ....... S.96 .................... Y2K Act.......................................................................... 

motion to proceed Cochran .......................... June 8, 1999 ...... UC V 145 11883 

June 10, 1999 ..... H.R.1664 ............ Steel, Oil and Gas Loan Guarantee Act....................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. June 15, 1999 .... 71–28 No. 167 I 145 12771 

June 10, 1999 ..... S.557 .................. Budget Process Reform................................................. 

S.Amdt.297 Lott ................................. June 15, 1999 .... 53–46 No. 166 F 145 12766 

June 14, 1999 ..... H.R.1259 ............ Social Security Lock Box of 1999................................. Lott ................................. June 16, 1999 .... 55–44 No. 170 F 145 13001 

June 18, 1999 ..... H.R.975 .............. Steel Import Limitation................................................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. June 22, 1999 .... 42–57 No. 178 F 145 13738 

June 24, 1999 ..... S.1234 ................ Foreign Operations Appropriations FY00................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. June 28, 1999 .... 49–41 No. 187 F 145 14451 

June 24, 1999 ..... S.1217 ................ Commerce, Justice, State Appropriations FY00......... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. June 28, 1999 .... 49–39 No. 186 F 145 14451 

June 24, 1999 ..... S.1143 ................ Transportation Appropriations FY00........................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. June 28, 1999 .... 49–40 No. 185 F 145 14450 

June 24, 1999 ..... S.1233 ................ Agriculture Appropriations FY00 ................................. Lott ................................. June 28, 1999 .... 50–37 No. 184 F 145 14450 

June 28, 1999 ..... S.1233 ................ Agriculture Appropriations FY00 ................................. 

S.Amdt.1103 Lott ................................. June 29, 1999 .... no vote N 145 14562 

June 29, 1999 ..... S.557 .................. Budget Process Reform................................................. 

motion to proceed Nickles........................... July 1, 1999 ....... 99–1 No. 193 I 145 15127 
143

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

July 1, 1999 ........ S.557 .................. Budget Process Reform................................................. 

S.Amdt.297 Lott ................................. July 16, 1999 ..... 52–43 No. 211 F 145 16354 

July 16, 1999 ...... H.R.1555 ............ Intelligence Authorization FY00.................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 20, 1999 ..... 99–0 No. 212 I 145 16659 

July 22, 1999 ...... H.R.1501 ............ Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999............................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 26, 1999 ..... UC V 145 17637 

July 26, 1999 ...... H.R.1501 ............ Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999............................ 

S.Amdt.1344 Lott ................................. July 28, 1999 ..... 77–22 No. 224 I 145 18143 

July 26, 1999 ...... H.R.1501 ............ Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 1999............................ Lott ................................. July 28, 1999 ..... UC W 145 18152 

Aug. 2, 1999 ........ S.1233 ................ Agriculture Appropriations FY00 ................................. 

motion to recommit Lott ................................. Aug. 4, 1999 ....... 53–47 No. 252 F 145 19333 

Aug. 5, 1999 ........ H.R.2084 ............ Transportation Appropriations FY00........................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 9, 1999 ...... 49–49 No. 264 F 145 20987 

Sept. 10, 1999 ..... H.R.2466 ............ Interior Appropriations FY00....................................... 

S.Amdt.1603 Lott ................................. Sept. 13, 1999 .... 55–40 No. 271 F 145 21246 

Vote No. 271 reconsidered Sept. 23, 1999 .... 60–39 No. 289 I 145 22322 

Sept. 10, 1999 ..... S.J.Res.33 .......... Clemency to FALN Terrorists....................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 13, 1999 .... 93–0 No. 270 I 145 21244 

Sept. 16, 1999 ..... S.625 .................. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999................................... Lott ................................. Sept. 21, 1999 .... 53–45 No. 280 F 145 22004 

Sept. 21, 1999 ..... PN455 ................ Judicial nominee Brian T. Stewart.............................. Lott ................................. Sept. 21, 1999 .... 55–44 No. 281 F 145 22004 

Oct. 7, 1999 ......... H.R.1906 ............ Agricultural Appropriations FY00............................... 

conference report Lott ................................. Oct. 12, 1999 ...... 79–20 No. 322 I 145 24921 

Oct. 8, 1999 ......... H.R.1906 ............ Agricultural Appropriations FY00............................... 

conference report Warner........................... Oct. 12, 1999 ...... UC W 145 24921 

Oct. 15, 1999 ....... S.1593 ................ Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1999................... 

S.Amdt.2299 Daschle.......................... Oct. 19, 1999 ...... 53–47 No. 331 F 145 25745 

Oct. 15, 1999 ....... S.1593 ................ Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 1999................... 

S.Amdt.2298 Daschle.......................... Oct. 19, 1999 ...... 52–48 No. 330 F 145 25741 

Oct. 22, 1999 ....... H.R.434 .............. African Growth and Opportunity................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Oct. 26, 1999 ...... 90–8 No. 341 I 145 26723 

Oct. 27, 1999 ....... H.R. 434 ............. African Growth and Opportunity Act.......................... 

S.Amdt.2325 Lott ................................. Oct. 29, 1999 ...... 45–46 No. 342 F 145 27539 

Oct. 29, 1999 ....... H.R.434 .............. African Growth and Opportunity Act.......................... Lott ................................. Nov. 3, 1999 ....... UC W 145 28085 Oct. 29, 1999 ....... H.R.434 .............. African Growth and Opportunity Act.......................... 

S.Amdt.2325 Lott ................................. Nov. 2, 1999 ....... 74–23 No. 344 I 145 27753 

Nov. 18, 1999 ...... H.R.3194 ............ Consolidated Appropriations Act FY00........................ 

conference report Lott ................................. Nov. 19, 1999 ..... 87–9 No. 373 I 145 30976 

Nov. 19, 1999 ...... S.625 .................. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1999................................... Lott ................................. Jan. 24, 2000 ..... UC V 146 11 

Jan. 31, 2000 ...... S.1287 ................ Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments............................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Feb. 2, 2000 ....... UC W 146 580 

Feb. 8, 2000 ........ S.1287 ................ Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments............................. Lott ................................. Feb. 9, 2000 ....... UC W 146 917 

Feb. 8, 2000 ........ S.1287 ................ Nuclear Waste Policy Amendments............................. 

S.Amdt.2808 Lott ................................. Feb. 8, 2000 ....... 94–3 No. 7 I 146 783 

Feb. 24, 2000 ...... S.1134 ................ Affordable Education Act of 1999................................. Lott ................................. Feb. 28, 2000 ..... UC W 146 1571 

Mar. 7, 2000 ........ PN44 .................. Judicial nominee Richard A. Paez................................ Lott ................................. Mar. 8, 2000 ....... 85–14 No. 37 I 146 2224 

Mar. 7, 2000 ........ PN33 .................. Judicial nominee Marsha L. Berzon............................ Lott ................................. Mar. 8, 2000 ....... 86–13 No. 36 I 146 2224 Mar. 27, 2000 ...... S.J.Res.14 .......... Flag Protection Constitutional Amendment................ Sessions......................... Mar. 29, 2000 ..... 100–0 No. 47 I 146 3822 

Mar. 28, 2000 ...... S.2285 ................ Gas Tax Repeal Act....................................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Mar. 30, 2000 ..... 86–11 No. 51 I 146 4124 
144

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Apr. 7, 2000 ......... S.2285 ................ Gas Tax Repeal Act....................................................... Murkowski..................... Apr. 11, 2000 ...... 43–56 No. 80 F 146 5146 

Apr. 11, 2000 ....... H.R.6 .................. Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.................................. Lott ................................. Apr. 13, 2000 ...... 53–45 No. 83 F 146 5681 

Apr. 11, 2000 ....... H.R.6 .................. Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.................................. 

S.Amdt.3090 Lott ................................. Apr. 13, 2000 ...... 53–45 No. 82 F 146 5680 

Apr. 13, 2000 ....... S.J.Res.3 ............ Victim’s Rights Constitutional Amendment................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Apr. 25, 2000 ...... 82–12 No. 86 I 146 5884 

Apr. 13, 2000 ....... H.R.6 .................. Marriage Tax Penalty Relief Act.................................. 

S.Amdt.3090 Lott ................................. Apr. 27, 2000 ...... 51–44 No. 87 F 146 6019 

May 10, 2000 ...... H.R.434 .............. African Growth and Opportunity Act.......................... 

conference report Grassley......................... May 11, 2000 ..... 76–18 No. 97 I 146 7691 

June 22, 2000 ..... H.R.4577 ............ Labor, Health, Education Appropriations, FY01......... 

motion to commit Reid................................ June 22, 2000 .... UC W 146 11906 

June 30, 2000 ..... H.R.8 .................. Estate Tax Repeal......................................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 11, 2000 ..... 99–1 No. 173 I 146 13653 

July 24, 2000 ...... S.2507 ................ Intelligence Authorization FY01.................................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 26, 2000 ..... 96–1 No. 228 I 146 16326 

July 24, 2000 ...... H.R.4871 ............ Treasury Appropriations FY01..................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 26, 2000 ..... 97–0 No. 227 I 146 16286 

July 25, 2000 ...... H.R.4733 ............ Energy Water Appropriations FY01 ............................. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 27, 2000 ..... 100–0 No. 229 I 146 16654 

July 26, 2000 ...... H.R.4444 ............ China Trade Bill............................................................ 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. July 27, 2000 ..... 86–12 No. 231 I 146 16693 

Sept. 15, 2000 ..... S.2045 ................ H1–B Visas.................................................................... 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. Sept. 19, 2000 .... 97–1 No. 252 I 146 18397 

Sept. 22, 2000 ..... S.2045 ................ H1–B Visas.................................................................... 

S.Amdt.4178 Lott ................................. Sept. 26, 2000 .... 94–3 No. 256 I 146 19316 

Sept. 26, 2000 ..... S.2045 ................ H1–B Visas.................................................................... Lott ................................. Sept. 28, 2000 .... UC W 146 20038 

Sept. 26, 2000 ..... S.2045 ................ H1–B Visas.................................................................... 

committee substitute amendment Lott ................................. Sept. 28, 2000 .... UC W 146 20038 

Sept. 26, 2000 ..... S.2045 ................ H1–B Visas.................................................................... 

S.Amdt.4177 Lott ................................. Sept. 28, 2000 .... 92–3 No. 260 I 146 20033 

Oct. 4, 2000 ......... H.R.4578 ............ Interior Appropriations FY01....................................... 

conference report Lott ................................. Oct. 5, 2000 ........ 89–8 No. 265 I 146 20872 

Oct. 30, 2000 ....... H.R.2415 ............ Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2000................................... 

conference report Lott ................................. Nov. 1, 2000 ....... 53–30 No. 294 F 146 25792 

Vote No. 294 reconsidered Dec. 5, 2000 ....... 67–31 No. 296 I 146 26276 

107th

Mar. 12, 2001 ...... S.420 .................. Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2001................................... Lott ................................. Mar. 14, 2001 ..... 80–19 No. 29 I 147 3650 Apr. 26, 2001 ....... S.1 ...................... Elementary, Secondary Education Act Authorization. 

motion to proceed Lott ................................. May 1, 2001 ....... 96–3 No. 88 I 147 6518 

July 9, 2001 ........ H.R.333 .............. Bankruptcy Reform bill................................................ 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 12, 2001 ..... 88–10 No. 230 I 147 13144 
145

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

July 12, 2001 ...... H.R.333 .............. Bankruptcy Reform bill................................................ 

S.Amdt.974 Leahy............................. July 17, 2001 ..... 88–10 No. 234 I 147 13363 

July 18, 2001 ...... H.R.2311 ............ Energy and Water Appropriations FY02..................... Reid................................ July 19, 2001 ..... no vote N 147 13909 

July 18, 2001 ...... H.R.2311 ............ Energy and Water Appropriations FY02..................... Reid................................ July 19, 2001 ..... no vote N 147 13909 

July 25, 2001 ...... H.R.2299 ............ Transportation Appropriations Act FY02.................... Daschle.......................... July 27, 2001 ..... 57–27 No. 259 F 147 14868 

Vote No. 259 reconsidered Aug. 1, 2001 ....... 100–0 No. 262 I 147 15283 

July 25, 2001 ...... H.R.2299 ............ Transportation Appropriations Act FY02.................... 

S.Amdt.1025 Daschle.......................... July 26, 2001 ..... 70–30 No. 252 I 147 14628 

July 27, 2001 ...... S.1246 ................ Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001.......... 

motion to proceed Daschle.......................... July 30, 2001 ..... 95–2 No. 260 I 147 14942 

Aug. 1, 2001 ........ S.1246 ................ Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act of 2001.......... Reid................................ Aug. 3, 2001 ....... 49–48 No. 273 F 147 16029 

Sept. 26, 2001 ..... S.1438 ................ National Defense Authorization Act FY02.................. Reid................................ Oct. 2, 2001 ........ 100–0 No. 289 I 147 18219 

Oct. 3, 2001 ......... S.1447 ................ Aviation Security Act.................................................... 

motion to proceed Daschle.......................... Oct. 9, 2001 ........ 97–0 No. 292 I 147 18984 

Oct. 10, 2001 ....... S.1447 ................ Aviation Security Act.................................................... 

S.Amdt.1855 Daschle.......................... Oct. 11, 2001 ...... 56–44 No. 293 F 147 19452 

Oct. 11, 2001 ....... H.R.2506 ............ Foreign Operations Appropriations FY02................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Oct. 15, 2001 ...... 50–46 No. 303 F 147 19757 

Oct. 15, 2001 ....... H.R.2506 ............ Foreign Operations Appropriations FY02................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Oct. 23, 2001 ...... 50–47 No. 306 F 147 20317 

Nov. 2, 2001 ........ H.R.3061 ............ Labor, HHS Appropriations FY02................................ 

S.Amdt.2044 Reid................................ Nov. 6, 2001 ....... 56–44 No. 323 F 147 21617 

Nov. 27, 2001 ...... H.R.10 ................ Pension Reform Act of 2001.......................................... 

motion to proceed Daschle.......................... Nov. 29, 2001 ..... 96–4 No. 343 I 147 23492 

Nov. 29, 2001 ...... H.R.10 ................ Pension Reform Act of 2001.......................................... Daschle.......................... Dec. 5, 2001 ....... UC W 147 23928 

Nov. 29, 2001 ...... H.R.10 ................ Pension Reform Act of 2001.......................................... 

S.Amdt.2170 Daschle.......................... Dec. 3, 2001 ....... 81–15 No. 345 I 147 23721 

Nov. 29, 2001 ...... H.R.10 ................ Pension Reform Act of 2001.......................................... 

S.Amdt.2171 Lott ................................. Dec. 3, 2001 ....... 1–94 No. 344 F 147 23721 

Nov. 30, 2001 ...... S.1731 ................ Farm Aid bill................................................................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Dec. 5, 2001 ....... 73–26 No. 352 I 147 23941 

Dec. 12, 2001 ...... S.1731 ................ Farm Aid bill................................................................. 

S.Amdt.2471 Daschle.......................... Dec. 13, 2001 ..... 53–45 No. 368 F 147 25967 

Vote No. 368 reconsidered Dec. 18, 2001 ..... 54–43 No. 372 F 147 26637 

Dec. 17, 2001 ...... S.1731 ................ Farm Aid bill................................................................. 

S.Amdt.2471 Kennedy......................... Dec. 19, 2001 ..... 54–43 No. 377 F 147 26880 

Feb. 4, 2002 ........ H.R.622 .............. Adoption Tax Credit...................................................... 

S.Amdt.2773 Grassley......................... Feb. 6, 2002 ....... 48–47 No. 14 F 148 696 

Feb. 4, 2002 ........ H.R.622 .............. Adoption Tax Credit...................................................... 

S.Amdt.2698 Daschle.......................... Feb. 6, 2002 ....... 56–39 No. 13 F 148 696 

Feb. 27, 2002 ...... S.565 .................. Equal Protection of Voting Rights Act of 2002............ Reid................................ Mar. 1, 2002 ....... 49–39 No. 39 F 148 2333 

Vote No. 39 reconsidered Mar. 4, 2002 ....... 51–44 No. 40 F 148 2367 

Mar. 13, 2002 ...... H.R.2356 ............ Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform........................ 

motion to proceed Daschle.......................... Mar. 14, 2002 ..... UC V 148 3260 

Mar. 18, 2002 ...... H.R.2356 ............ Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform........................ Daschle.......................... Mar. 20, 2002 ..... 68–32 No. 53 I 148 3571 

Apr. 8, 2002 ......... S.517 .................. Energy Security Policy Act........................................... 

S.Amdt.2989 Reid................................ Apr. 10, 2002 ...... 48–50 No. 61 F 148 4186 

Apr. 16, 2002 ....... S.517 .................. Energy Security Policy Act........................................... 

S.Amdt.3132 Reid................................ Apr. 18, 2002 ...... 46–54 No. 71 F 148 5037 
146

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Apr. 16, 2002 ....... S.517 .................. Energy Security Policy Act........................................... 

S.Amdt.3133 Reid................................ Apr. 18, 2002 ...... 36–64 No. 70 F 148 5037 

Apr. 18, 2002 ....... S.517 .................. Energy Security Policy Act........................................... 

S.Amdt.2917 Reid................................ Apr. 23, 2002 ...... 86–13 No. 77 I 148 5353 

Apr. 25, 2002 ....... H.R.3009 ............ Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 29, 2002 ...... 69–21 No. 97 I 148 5944 

May 9, 2002 ........ H.R.3009 ............ Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.................... 

S.Amdt.3399 Lott ................................. May 9, 2002 ....... UC V 148 7263 

May 17, 2002 ...... H.R.3009 ............ Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.................... 

S.Amdt.3433 Reid................................ May 21, 2002 ..... 56–40 No. 117 F 148 8288 

May 20, 2002 ...... H.R.3009 ............ Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.................... 

S.Amdt.3401 Reid................................ May 22, 2002 ..... 68–29 No. 122 I 148 8543 

May 21, 2002 ...... H.R.3009 ............ Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.................... Reid................................ May 23, 2002 ..... UC V 148 8830 

June 4, 2002 ....... H.R.4775 ............ Supplemental Appropriations FY02............................ Daschle.......................... June 6, 2002 ...... 87–10 No. 135 I 148 9567 

June 5, 2002 ....... H.R.4775 ............ Supplemental Appropriations FY02............................ Reid................................ June 6, 2002 ...... no vote V 148 9567 

June 7, 2002 ....... S.625 .................. Hate Crimes bill............................................................ Reid................................ June 11, 2002 ..... 54–43 No. 147 F 148 9839 

June 10, 2002 ..... S.2578 ................ Public Debt Limit.......................................................... 

motion to proceed Daschle.......................... June 11, 2002 ..... no vote V 148 9840 

June 14, 2002 ..... S.2600 ................ Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002......................... Daschle.......................... June 18, 2002 .... 65–31 No. 156 I 148 10610 

June 17, 2002 ..... S.2600 ................ Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002......................... 

S.Amdt.3843 Brownback..................... June 18, 2002 .... no vote V 148 10613 

June 25, 2002 ..... S.2514 ................ National Defense Authorization FY03......................... Daschle.......................... June 27, 2002 .... 98–0 No. 164 I 148 11633 

July 10, 2002 ...... PN889 ................ Judicial nominee Lavenski R. Smith........................... Reid................................ July 15, 2002 ..... 94–3 No. 177 I 148 12977 

July 10, 2002 ...... S.2673 ................ Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002.......................................... Reid................................ July 12, 2002 ..... 91–2 No. 173 I 148 12736 

July 15, 2002 ...... S.812 .................. Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals......................... 

motion to proceed Daschle.......................... July 17, 2002 ..... 99–0 No. 178 I 148 13189 

July 17, 2002 ...... PN894 ................ Judicial nominee Richard R. Clifton............................ Reid................................ July 18, 2002 ..... 97–1 No. 183 I 148 13507 

July 18, 2002 ...... PN1898 .............. Nominee Richard H. Carmona..................................... Daschle.......................... July 23, 2002 ..... 98–0 No. 185 I 148 13869 

July 24, 2002 ...... PN1115 ............... Judicial nominee Julia S. Gibbons............................... Reid................................ July 26, 2002 ..... 89–0 No. 193 I 148 14886 

July 24, 2002 ...... S.812 .................. Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals......................... 

S.Amdt.4316 Reid................................ July 25, 2002 ..... UC W 148 14439 

July 29, 2002 ...... S.812 .................. Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals......................... Reid................................ July 31, 2002 ..... 66–33 No. 200 I 148 15424 

July 29, 2002 ...... S.812 .................. Access to Affordable Pharmaceuticals......................... 

S.Amdt.4299 Reid................................ July 31, 2002 ..... UC W 148 15407 

July 30, 2002 ...... H.R.3009 ............ Andean Trade Preference Expansion Act.................... 

conference report Daschle.......................... Aug. 1, 2002 ....... 64–32 No. 203 I 148 15571 

July 31, 2002 ...... H.R.5005 ............ Homeland Security Act of 2002.................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Aug. 1, 2002 ....... UC W 148 15573 

Sept. 5, 2002 ....... H.R.5093 ............ Interior Appropriations FY03....................................... 

S.Amdt.4481 Reid................................ Sept. 5, 2002 ...... UC V 148 16240 

Sept. 13, 2002 ..... H.R.5093 ............ Interior Appropriations FY03....................................... 

S.Amdt.4480 Daschle.......................... Sept. 17, 2002 .... 50–49 No. 217 F 148 16841 

Vote No. 217 reconsidered Sept. 23, 2002 .... 49–46 No. 221 F 148 17499 
147

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Sept. 17, 2002 ..... H.R.5005 ............ Homeland Security Act of 2002.................................... 

S.Amdt.4471 Daschle.......................... Sept. 19, 2002 .... 50–49 No. 218 F 148 17272 

Sept. 23, 2002 ..... H.R.5005 ............ Homeland Security Act of 2002.................................... 

S.Amdt.4471 Reid................................ Sept. 25, 2002 .... 49–49 No. 225 F 148 17758 

Vote No. 225 reconsidered Sept. 26, 2002 .... 50–49 No. 226 F 148 18223 

Sept. 23, 2002 ..... H.R.5093 ............ Interior Appropriations FY03....................................... 

S.Amdt.4480 Reid................................ Sept. 25, 2002 .... 51–47 No. 224 F 148 17758 

Sept. 25, 2002 ..... H.R.5005 ............ Homeland Security Act of 2002.................................... 

S.Amdt.4738 Reid................................ Sept. 26, 2002 .... 44–53 No. 227 F 148 18230 

Vote No. 227 reconsidered Nov. 13, 2002 ..... 89–8 No. 240 I 148 21835 

Sept. 26, 2002 ..... H.R.5005 ............ Homeland Security Act of 2002.................................... 

S.Amdt.4738 Daschle.......................... Oct. 1, 2002 ........ 45–52 No. 228 F 148 18567 

Oct. 1, 2002 ......... S.J.Res.45 .......... Use of U.S. Forces Against Iraq................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Oct. 3, 2002 ........ 95–1 No. 230 I 148 19055 

Oct. 1, 2002 ......... H.R.2215 ............ Department of Justice Authorization FY02 ................. 

conference report Daschle.......................... Oct. 3, 2002 ........ 93–5 No. 229 I 148 19030 

Oct. 8, 2002 ......... S.J.Res.45 .......... Use of U.S. Forces Against Iraq................................... Reid................................ Oct. 10, 2002 ...... UC V 148 20417 

Oct. 8, 2002 ......... S.J.Res.45 .......... Use of U.S. Forces Against Iraq................................... 

S.Amdt.4856 Reid................................ Oct. 10, 2002 ...... 75–25 No. 233 I 148 20387 

Oct. 10, 2002 ....... S.Res.304 ........... Budget enforcement resolution.................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Oct. 15, 2002 ...... UC V 148 20661 

Nov. 13, 2002 ...... H.R.5005 ............ Homeland Security Act of 2002.................................... Thompson...................... Nov. 19, 2002 ..... 83–16 No. 248 I 148 22964 

Nov. 13, 2002 ...... H.R.5005 ............ Homeland Security Act of 2002.................................... 

S.Amdt.4901 Thompson...................... Nov. 15, 2002 ..... 65–29 No. 244 I 148 22701 

Nov. 15, 2002 ...... PN888 ................ Judicial nominee Dennis W. Shedd.............................. Reid................................ Nov. 18, 2002 ..... UC V 148 22818 

Nov. 19, 2002 ...... H.R.3210 ............ Terrorism Risk Insurance Act of 2002......................... 

conference report Reid................................ Nov. 19, 2002 ..... 85–12 No. 251 I 148 23119 

108th

Jan. 14, 2003 ...... S.Res.18 ............. Majority Party Committee Appointments................... Frist............................... Jan. 15, 2003 ..... no vote V 149 1073 

Mar. 4, 2003 ........ PN6 .................... Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada............................ Frist............................... Mar. 6, 2003 ....... 55–44 No. 40 F 149 5400 

Mar. 11, 2003 ...... PN6 .................... Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada............................ Frist............................... Mar. 13, 2003 ..... 55–42 No. 53 F 149 6194 

Mar. 13, 2003 ...... PN6 .................... Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada............................ Frist............................... Mar. 18, 2003 ..... 55–45 No. 56 F 149 6374 

Mar. 31, 2003 ...... PN6 .................... Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada............................ Bennett.......................... Apr. 2, 2003 ........ 55–44 No. 114 F 149 8207 

Apr. 29, 2003 ....... PN11 .................. Judicial nominee Priscilla R. Owen............................. McConnell...................... May 1, 2003 ....... 52–44 No. 137 F 149 10323 

May 1, 2003 ........ PN6 .................... Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada............................ McConnell...................... May 5, 2003 ....... 52–39 No. 140 F 149 10461 

May 6, 2003 ........ PN11 .................. Judicial nominee Priscilla R. Owen............................. McConnell...................... May 8, 2003 ....... 52–45 No. 144 F 149 10811 

May 6, 2003 ........ PN6 .................... Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada............................ McConnell...................... May 8, 2003 ....... 54–43 No. 143 F 149 10810 

June 27, 2003 ..... PN38 .................. Judicial nominee Victor J. Wolski................................ Frist............................... July 8, 2003 ....... UC V 149 17073 

July 7, 2003 ........ S.11 .................... Patients First Act; malpratice liability limits............. 

motion to proceed Frist............................... July 9, 2003 ....... 49–48 No. 264 F 149 17249 

July 25, 2003 ...... PN11 .................. Judicial nominee Priscilla R. Owen............................. Hatch............................. July 29, 2003 ..... 53–43 No. 308 F 149 20017 

July 28, 2003 ...... PN6 .................... Judicial nominee Miguel A. Estrada............................ Sessions......................... July 30, 2003 ..... 55–43 No. 312 F 149 20124 

July 29, 2003 ...... PN512 ................ Judicial nominee William H. Pryor, Jr......................... McConnell...................... July 31, 2003 ..... 53–44 No. 316 F 149 20398 

July 30, 2003 ...... PN8 .................... Judicial nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl............................... Frist............................... July 31, 2003 ..... UC V 149 20520 

July 30, 2003 ...... S.14 .................... Energy Policy Act.......................................................... 

motion to commit Frist............................... July 31, 2003 ..... UC W 149 20520 

Oct. 20, 2003 ....... S.1751 ................ Class Action Fairness Act............................................. 

motion to proceed McConnell...................... Oct. 22, 2003 ...... 59–39 No. 403 F 149 25510 
148

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Oct. 23, 2003 ....... PN884 ................ Nominee Michael O. Leavitt ......................................... McConnell...................... Oct. 27, 2003 ...... UC V 149 25844 Oct. 28, 2003 ....... PN12 .................. Judicial nominee Charles W. Pickering, Sr. ................. McConnell...................... Oct. 30, 2003 ...... 54–43 No. 419 F 149 26556 Nov. 4, 2003 ........ PN512 ................ Judicial nominee William H. Pryor, Jr......................... Santorum....................... Nov. 6, 2003 ....... 51–43 No. 441 F 149 27950 

Nov. 12, 2003 ...... PN141 ................ Nominee Thomas C. Dorr............................................. Frist............................... Nov. 18, 2003 ..... 57–39 No. 455 F 149 29315 

Nov. 12, 2003 ...... PN140 ................ Nominee Thomas C. Dorr............................................. Frist............................... Nov. 18, 2003 ..... 57–39 No. 454 F 149 29314 

Nov. 12, 2003 ...... H.R.2115 ............ FAA Authorization FY2004–06 ..................................... 

conference report Frist............................... Nov. 17, 2003 ..... 45–43 No. 453 F 149 29053 

Nov. 12, 2003 ...... PN839 ................ Judicial nominee Janice R. Brown............................... Frist............................... Nov. 12, 2003 ..... 53–43 No. 452 F 149 28866 

Nov. 12, 2003 ...... PN8 .................... Judicial nominee Carolyn B. Kuhl............................... Frist............................... Nov. 12, 2003 ..... 53–43 No. 451 F 149 28864 

Nov. 12, 2003 ...... PN11 .................. Judicial nominee Priscilla R. Owen............................. Frist............................... Nov. 12, 2003 ..... 53–42 No. 450 F 149 28858 

Nov. 19, 2003 ...... H.R.6 .................. Energy Policy Act.......................................................... 

conference report Frist............................... Nov. 21, 2003 ..... 57–40 No. 456 F 149 30473 

Nov. 22, 2003 ...... H.R.1 .................. Medicare Prescription Drug Act of 2003...................... 

conference report Frist............................... Nov. 24, 2003 ..... 70–29 No. 457 I 149 31151 

Dec. 9, 2003........ H.R.2673 ............ Omnibus Appropriations FY04 ..................................... 

conference report Frist............................... Jan. 20, 2004 ..... 48–45 No. 1 F 150 21 

Vote No. 1 reconsidered Jan. 22, 2004 ..... 61–32 No. 2 I 150 292 

Jan. 28, 2004 ...... S.1072 ................ Safe Transportation Equity Act .................................... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Feb. 2, 2004 ....... 75–11 No. 7 I 150 704 

Feb. 10, 2004 ...... S.1072 ................ Safe Transportation Equity Act .................................... Frist............................... Feb. 12, 2004 ..... UC W 150 S1241 

Feb. 10, 2004 ...... S.1072 ................ Safe Transportation Equity Act .................................... 

S.Amdt.2285 Frist............................... Feb. 12, 2004 ..... 86–11 No. 10 I 150 1919 

Feb. 12, 2004 ...... S.2061 ................ Mothers Access to Care; malpractice liability limits ... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Feb. 24, 2004 ..... 48–45 No. 15 F 150 2258 

Feb. 23, 2004 ...... S.1805 ................ Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act ............... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Feb. 25, 2004 ..... 75–22 No. 16 I 150 2443 

Mar. 22, 2004 ...... S.1637 ................ JOBS Act; corporate tax cuts........................................ 

motion to recommit McConnell...................... Mar. 24, 2004 ..... 51–47 No. 60 F 150 4987 

Mar. 30, 2004 ...... H.R.4 .................. Welfare reform ............................................................... 

committee substitute amendment Frist............................... Apr. 1, 2004 ........ 51–47 No. 65 F 150 5966 

Apr. 2, 2004 ......... S.2207 ................ Pregnancy and Trauma Care Access; malpractice 

liability limits motion to proceed Frist............................... Apr. 7, 2004 ........ 49–48 No. 66 F 150 6744 

Apr. 5, 2004 ......... S.1637 ................ JOBS Act; corporate tax cuts........................................ 

motion to recommit Frist............................... Apr. 7, 2004 ........ 49–48 No. 67 F 150 6744 

Apr. 20, 2004 ....... S.J.Res.1 ............ Constitutional Amendment to Protect Crime Victims 

motion to proceed Crapo .............................. Apr. 21, 2004 ...... UC V 150 S4233 

Apr. 20, 2004 ....... S.2290 ................ Asbestos claims............................................................. 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Apr. 22, 2004 ...... 50–47 No. 69 F 150 7290 

Apr. 22, 2004 ....... S.150 .................. Internet Tax Nondiscrimination.................................. 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Apr. 26, 2004 ...... 74–11 No. 71 I 150 7559 

Apr. 27, 2004 ....... S.150 .................. Internet Tax Nondiscrimination.................................. 

S.Amdt.3048 Frist............................... Apr. 29, 2004 ...... 64–34 No. 75 I 150 8022 
149

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Apr. 27, 2004 ....... S.150 .................. Internet Tax Nondiscrimination.................................. 

S.Amdt.3051 Frist............................... Apr. 29, 2004 ...... 55–43 No. 74 F 150 8021 

Apr. 27, 2004 ....... S.150 .................. Internet Tax Nondiscrimination.................................. 

S.Amdt.3050 Daschle.......................... Apr. 29, 2004 ...... 40–59 No. 73 F 150 8018 

May 7, 2004 ........ S.1637 ................ JOBS Act; corporate tax cuts........................................ Frist............................... May 11, 2004 ..... 90–8 No. 87 I 150 8923 

May 14, 2004 ...... PN1175 .............. Judicial nominee Marcia G. Cooke ............................... Kyl.................................. May 18, 2004 ..... UC V 150 9782 

May 21, 2004 ...... S.2062 ................ Class Action Fairness Act............................................. 

motion to proceed Frist............................... June 1, 2004 ...... UC V 150 11050 

June 16, 2004 ..... S.2400 ................ Defense Authorization FY05........................................ Frist............................... June 17, 2004 .... UC V 150 12744 

June 22, 2004 ..... S.2400 ................ Defense Authorization FY05........................................ Frist............................... June 23, 2004 .... no vote N 150 13568 

July 7, 2004 ........ S.2062 ................ Class Action Fairness Act............................................. Frist............................... July 8, 2004 ....... 44–43 No. 154 F 150 14857 

July 12, 2004 ...... S.J.Res.40 .......... Constitutional Amendment Relating to Marriage...... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... July 14, 2004 ..... 48–50 No. 155 F 150 15446 

July 16, 2004 ...... PN658 ................ Judicial nominee William G. Myers............................. Frist............................... July 20, 2004 ..... 53–44 No. 158 F 150 16224 

July 20, 2004 ...... PN14 .................. Judicial nominee Henry W. Saad................................. Frist............................... July 22, 2004 ..... 52–46 No. 160 F 150 16979 

July 21, 2004 ...... PN9 .................... Judicial nominee David W. McKeague ......................... Frist............................... July 22, 2004 ..... 53–44 No. 162 F 150 16982 

July 21, 2004 ...... PN7 .................... Judicial nominee Richard A. Griffi n............................ Frist............................... July 22, 2004 ..... 54–44 No. 161 F 150 16981 

Oct. 1, 2004 ......... S.2845 ................ National Intelligence Reform Act................................. Frist............................... Oct. 5, 2004 ........ 85–10 No. 197 I 150 20690 

Oct. 6, 2004 ......... S.Res.445 ........... Intelligence Committee reform.................................... McConnell...................... Oct. 9, 2004 ........ UC V 150 22966 Oct. 6, 2004 ......... S.Res.445 ........... Intelligence Committee reform ................................... 

S.Amdt.3981 McConnell...................... Oct. 8, 2004 ........ 88–3 No. 204 I 150 21953 

Oct. 8, 2004 ......... H.R.4520 ............ JOBS Act; corporate tax cuts........................................ 

conference report Frist............................... Oct. 10, 2004 ...... 66–14 No. 210 I 150 23083 

Oct. 9, 2004 ......... H.R.4567 ............ Homeland Security Appropriations FY05 .................... 

conference report Frist............................... Oct. 10, 2004 ...... UC V 150 23114 

Oct. 9, 2004 ......... H.R.4837 ............ Military Construction Appropriations FY05............... 

conference report Frist............................... Oct. 10, 2004 ...... UC V 150 23114 

Nov. 17, 2004 ...... H.R.1047 ............ Trade and Technical Corrections Act........................... 

conference report Frist............................... Nov. 19, 2004 ..... 88–5 No. 214 I 150 24136 

109th

Mar. 4, 2005 ........ S.256 .................. Bankruptcy Reform Act................................................ McConnell...................... Mar. 8, 2005 ....... 61–31 No. 29 I 151 3670 

Apr. 14, 2005 ....... H.R.1268 ............ Emergency Supplemental FY05................................... 

S.Amdt.387 Mikulski ......................... Apr. 19, 2005 ...... 83–17 No. 101 I 151 6845 

Apr. 15, 2005 ....... H.R.1268 ............ Emergency Supplemental FY05................................... Frist............................... Apr. 19, 2005 ...... 100–0 No. 103 I 151 6847 

Apr. 15, 2005 ....... H.R.1268 ............ Emergency Supplemental FY05................................... 

S.Amdt.375 Frist............................... Apr. 19, 2005 ...... 53–45 No. 98 F 151 6839 

Apr. 15, 2005 ....... H.R.1268 ............ Emergency Supplemental FY05................................... 

S.Amdt.432 Frist............................... Apr. 19, 2005 ...... 21–77 No. 97 F 151 6838 

Apr. 22, 2005 ....... H.R.3 .................. Transportation Equity Act............................................ 

motion to proceed Bennett.......................... Apr. 26, 2005 ...... 94–6 No. 110 I 151 7656 

Apr. 27, 2005 ....... PN328 ................ Nominee Stephen L. Johnson....................................... McConnell...................... Apr. 28, 2005 ...... 61–37 No. 115 I 151 8183 

Apr. 27, 2005 ....... PN415 ................ Nominee Robert J. Portman......................................... McConnell...................... Apr. 28, 2005 ...... UC W 151 8183 

May 10, 2005 ...... H.R.3 .................. Transportation Equity Act............................................ McConnell...................... May 12, 2005 ..... UC V 151 9493 

May 10, 2005 ...... H.R.3 .................. Transportation Equity Act ........................................... 

S.Amdt. 605 McConnell...................... May 12, 2005 ..... 97–7 No. 122 I 151 9463 

May 20, 2005 ...... PN194 ................ Judicial Nominee Priscilla R. Owen............................ Cornyn........................... May 24, 2005 ..... 81–18 No. 127 I 151 10928 

May 25, 2005 ...... PN326 ................ Nominee John R. Bolton............................................... McConnell...................... May 26, 2005 ..... 56–42 No. 129 F 151 11523 

Vote No. 129 reconsidered June 20, 2005 .... 54–38 No. 142 F 151 13122 
150

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

May 26, 2005 ...... PN200 ................ Judicial nominee William H. Pryor, Jr......................... Frist............................... June 8, 2005 ...... 67–32 No. 132 I 151 11846 

May 26, 2005 ...... PN201 ................ Judicial nominee Janice R. Brown............................... Frist............................... June 7, 2005 ...... 65–32 No. 130 I 151 11691 

June 21, 2005 ..... H.R.6 .................. Energy Policy Act of 2005............................................. Domenici........................ June 23, 2005 .... 92–4 No. 152 I 151 13972 

July 19, 2005 ...... PN68 .................. Nominee Thomas C. Dorr............................................. Frist............................... July 21, 2005 ..... UC V 151 S8601 

July 22, 2005 ...... S.397 .................. Firearms Manufacturers Protection Act...................... 

motion to proceed McConnell...................... July 26, 2005 ..... 66–32 No. 206 I 151 17369 

July 22, 2005 ...... S.1042 ................ National Defense Authorization FY06......................... McConnell...................... July 26, 2005 ..... 50–48 No. 205 F 151 17368 

July 27, 2005 ...... S.397 .................. Firearms Manufacturers Protection Act...................... Frist............................... July 28, 2005 ..... UC V 151 18939 

July 29, 2005 ...... H.R.8 .................. Estate tax repeal bill ..................................................... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Sept. 6, 2005 ...... UC W 151 19465 

July 29, 2005 ...... S.147 .................. Native Hawaiians bill................................................... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Sept. 6, 2005 ...... UC W 151 19465 

Oct. 4, 2005 ......... H.R.2863 ............ Defense Appropriations FY06...................................... Frist............................... Oct. 5, 2005 ........ 95–4 No. 252 I 151 22296 

Oct. 25, 2005 ....... H.R.3010 ............ Labor, HHS Appropriations FY06................................ Frist............................... Oct. 27, 2005 ...... 97–0 No. 275 I 151 24063 

Dec. 14, 2005 ...... H.R.3199 ............ Patriot Reauthorization Act......................................... 

conference report Frist............................... Dec. 16, 2005 ..... 52–47 No. 358 F 151 28818 

Vote. No. 358 reconsidered Mar. 1, 2006 ....... 84–15 No. 28 I 152 2304 

Dec. 19, 2005 ...... H.R.1815 ............ National Defense Authorization FY06......................... 

conference report Frist............................... Dec. 21, 2005 ..... UC W 151 30742 

Dec. 19, 2005 ...... H.R.2863 ............ Department of Defense Appropriations FY06............. 

conference report Frist............................... Dec. 21, 2005 ..... 54–44 No. 364 F 151 30722 

Jan. 26, 2006 ...... PN1059 .............. Judicial nominee Samuel A. Alito, Jr........................... Frist............................... Jan. 30, 2006 ..... 72–25 No. 1 I 152 317 

Feb. 6, 2006 ........ S.852 .................. Fairness in Asbestos Injury Act .................................... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Feb. 7, 2006 ....... 98–1 No. 12 I 152 1025 

Feb. 8, 2006 ........ PN507 ................ Nominee Eric S. Edelman ............................................. Frist............................... Feb. 9, 2006 ....... UC W 152 1429 

Feb. 13, 2006 ...... S.852 .................. Fairness in Asbestos Injury Act .................................... 

S.Amdt.2746 Frist............................... Feb. 14, 2006 ..... UC W 152 1610 

Feb. 13, 2006 ...... S.852 .................. Fairness in Asbestos Injury Act .................................... Frist............................... Feb. 14, 2006 ..... UC W 152 1610 

Feb. 14, 2006 ...... S.2271 ................ Patriot Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Feb. 16, 2006 ..... 93–3 No. 22 I 152 1992 

Feb. 16, 2006 ...... S.2271 ................ Patriot Act Additional Reauthorizing Amendments... Frist............................... Feb. 28, 2006 ..... 69–30 No. 23 I 152 2165 

Feb. 28, 2006 ...... S.2320 ................ Low Income Home Energy Assistance Funds .............. 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Mar. 2, 2006 ....... UC W 152 4094 

Mar. 3, 2006 ........ S.2320 ................ Low Income Home Energy Assistance Funds .............. Frist............................... Mar. 7, 2006 ....... 75–25 No. 33 I 152 2731 

Mar. 8, 2006 ........ S.2349 ................ Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act....... Frist............................... Mar. 9, 2006 ....... 51–47 No. 36 F 152 3214 

Vote No. 36 reconsidered Mar. 28, 2006 ..... 81–16 No. 79 I 152 4093 

Mar. 16, 2006 ...... S.2454 ................ Immigration Reform..................................................... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Mar. 28, 2006 ..... UC W 152 2453 

Apr. 4, 2006 ......... S.2454 ................ Immigration Reform..................................................... 

S.Amdt.3192 Reid................................ Apr. 6, 2006 ........ 39–60 No. 88 F 152 5515 

Apr. 5, 2006 ......... PN70 .................. Nominee Peter Cyril Wyche Flory................................ Frist............................... Apr. 7, 2006 ........ 36–62 No. 92 F 152 5741 Apr. 5, 2006 ......... PN922 ................ Nominee Dorrance Smith............................................. Frist............................... Apr. 7, 2006 ........ UC W 152 5733 

Apr. 5, 2006 ......... PN413 ................ Nominee Gordon England............................................ Frist............................... Apr. 6, 2006 ........ UC V 152 5688 
151

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Apr. 5, 2006 ......... PN608 ................ Nominee Benjamin A. Powell....................................... Frist............................... Apr. 6, 2006 ........ UC V 152 S3343 

Apr. 5, 2006 ......... S.2454 ................ Immigration Reform..................................................... Frist............................... Apr. 7, 2006 ........ 36–62 No. 90 F 152 5732 

Apr. 5, 2006 ......... S.2454 ................ Immigration Reform..................................................... 

motion to commit Frist............................... Apr. 7, 2006 ........ 38–60 No. 89 F 152 5732 

Apr. 27, 2006 ....... H.R.4939 ............ Emergency Supplemental FY06................................... Frist............................... May 2, 2006 ....... 94–4 No. 103 I 152 6608 

May 5, 2006 ........ S.1955 ................ Small Business Health Insurance................................ 

motion to proceed Frist............................... May 9, 2006 ....... 96–2 No. 117 I 152 7267 

May 5, 2006 ........ S.23 .................... Women’s Health Services Medical Malpractice 

Liability Reform motion to proceed Frist............................... May 8, 2006 ....... 49–44 No. 116 F 152 7243 

May 5, 2006 ........ S.22 .................... Medical Malpractice Liability Reform......................... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... May 8, 2006 ....... 48–42 No. 115 F 152 7243 

May 10, 2006 ...... S.1955 ................ Small Business Health Insurance................................ 

committee substitute Frist............................... May 11, 2006 ..... 55–43 No. 119 F 152 8036 

May 22, 2006 ...... PN1179 .............. Judicial nominee Brett M. Kavanaugh........................ Frist............................... May 25, 2006 ..... 67–30 No. 158 I 152 9602 

May 22, 2006 ...... S.2611 ................ Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act.................... Frist............................... May 24, 2006 ..... 73–25 No. 144 I 152 9350 

May 24, 2006 ...... PN1446 .............. Nominee Dirk Kempthorne.......................................... Frist............................... May 26, 2006 ..... 85–8 No. 161 I 152 9865 

June 5, 2006 ....... S.J.Res.1 ............ Constitutional Amendment Relating to Marriage...... 

motion to proceed McConnell...................... June 7, 2006 ...... 49–48 No. 163 F 152 10282 

June 6, 2006 ....... S.147 .................. Native Hawaiian Government Regorganization Act... 

motion to proceed McConnell...................... June 8, 2006 ...... 56–41 No. 165 F 152 10408 

June 6, 2006 ....... H.R.8 .................. Estate Tax Repeal......................................................... 

motion to proceed McConnell...................... June 8, 2006 ...... 57–41 No. 164 F 152 10396 

June 7, 2006 ....... PN876 ................ Nominee Richard Stickler............................................ Sessions......................... June 13, 2006 .... UC W 152 10892 

June 20, 2006 ..... S.2766 ................ National Defense Authorization FY07......................... McConnell...................... June 22, 2006 .... 98–1 No. 183 I 152 12375 July 24, 2006 ...... S.3711 ................ Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act............................. 

motion to proceed Frist............................... July 26, 2006 ..... 86–12 No. 217 I 152 15877 

July 27, 2006 ...... S.3711 ................ Gulf of Mexico Energy Security Act............................. Frist............................... July 31, 2006 ..... 72–23 No. 218 I 152 16586 

Aug. 2, 2006 ........ H.R.5970 ............ Estate Tax Reduction and Extension of Tax Relief..... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Aug. 3, 2006 ....... 56–42 No. 229 F 152 16910 

Sept. 12, 2006 ..... H.R.4954 ............ Port Security bill........................................................... Frist............................... Sept. 14, 2006 .... 98–0 No. 247 I 152 18169 

Sept. 18, 2006 ..... H.R.6061 ............ Secure Fence Act........................................................... 

motion to proceed Frist............................... Sept. 20, 2006 .... 94–0 No. 252 I 152 18592 

Sept. 25, 2006 ..... H.R.6061 ............ Secure Fence Act........................................................... Frist............................... Sept. 28, 2006 .... 71–28 No. 260 I 152 20350 

Sept. 25, 2006 ..... H.R.6061 ............ Secure Fence Act........................................................... 

S.Amdt.5036 Frist............................... Sept. 27, 2006 .... UC W 152 19948 

Sept. 27, 2006 ..... S.403 .................. Child Interstate Abortion Notifi cation......................... 

motion to concur in House amendment Bennett.......................... Sept. 29, 2006 .... 57–42 No. 263 F 152 21497 

Dec. 5, 2006 ........ PN1396 .............. Nominee Andrew von Eschenbach............................... Frist............................... Dec. 7, 2006 ....... 89–6 No. 273 I 152 22919 

Dec. 6, 2006 ........ PN1746 .............. Judicial nominee Kent A. Jordan................................. Frist............................... Dec. 8, 2006 ....... 93–0 No. 275 I 152 23455 

Dec. 8, 2006 ........ H.R.6111 ............ Tax Relief and Health Care Act .................................... 

motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment 

Frist............................... Dec. 8, 2006 ....... 78–10 No. 278 I 152 23573 

110th

Jan. 12, 2007 ...... S.1 ...................... Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act....... Reid................................ Jan. 18, 2007 ..... no vote N 153 1693 

Jan. 12, 2007 ...... S.1 ...................... Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act....... 

S.Amdt.3 Reid................................ Jan. 17, 2007 ..... 51–46 No. 16 F 153 1401 
152

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Jan. 12, 2007 ...... S.1 ...................... Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act....... 

S.Amdt.4 Reid................................ Jan. 16, 2007 ..... 95–2 No. 12 I 153 1228 

Jan. 22, 2007 ...... H.R.2 .................. Fair Minimum Wage Act ............................................... Reid................................ Jan. 24, 2007 ..... 54–43 No. 23 F 153 2203 Jan. 22, 2007 ...... H.R.2 .................. Fair Minimum Wage Act ............................................... 

S.Amdt.101 Reid................................ Jan. 24, 2007 ..... 49–48 No. 22 F 153 2201 

Jan. 26, 2007 ...... S.Con.Res.2 ........ Bipartisan Resolution on Iraq...................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 1, 2007 ....... 0–97 No. 43 F 153 2969 

Jan. 26, 2007 ...... H.R.2 .................. Fair Minimum Wage Act ............................................... Reid................................ Jan. 31, 2007 ..... 88–8 No. 39 I 153 2829 

Jan. 26, 2007 ...... H.R.2 .................. Fair Minimum Wage Act ............................................... 

S.Amdt.100 Reid................................ Jan. 30, 2007 ..... 87–10 No. 34 I 153 2574 

Feb. 1, 2007 ........ S.470 .................. Sense of Congress on Iraq ............................................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 5, 2007 ....... 49–47 No. 44 F 153 3047 

Feb. 8, 2007 ........ H.J.Res.20.......... Continuing Appropriations, 2007................................. Reid................................ Feb. 13, 2007 ..... 71–26 No. 46 I 153 3783 

Feb. 15, 2007 ...... S.574 .................. Sense of Congress on Iraq ............................................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 17, 2007 ..... 56–34 No. 51 F 153 4593 

Feb. 17, 2007 ...... S.184 .................. Surface Transportation and Rail Security................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 27, 2007 ..... UC V 153 4652 

Feb. 27, 2007 ...... S.4 ...................... Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission motion to proceed Bingaman...................... Feb. 27, 2007 ..... 97–0 No. 53 I 153 4653 

Mar. 7, 2007 ........ S.4 ...................... Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission 

Reid................................ Mar. 9, 2007 ....... UC V 153 5949 

Mar. 7, 2007 ........ S.4 ...................... Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission S.Amdt.275 Reid................................ Mar. 9, 2007 ....... 69–26 No. 69 I 153 5949 

Mar. 7, 2007 ........ S.4 ...................... Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission S.Amdt.312 McConnell...................... Mar. 9, 2007 ....... 46–49 No. 68 F 153 5949 

Mar. 12, 2007 ...... S.214 .................. Preserving U.S. Attorney Independence Act............... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Mar. 15, 2007 ..... UC W 153 6498 

Mar. 12, 2007 ...... S.J.Res.9 ............ Revise United States Policy on Iraq ............................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Mar. 14, 2007 ..... 89–9 No. 74 I 153 6267 

Mar. 26, 2007 ...... H.R.1591 ............ Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery 

and Iraq Accountability Appropriations 

Reid................................ Mar. 28, 2007 ..... 97–0 No. 117 I 153 8046 

Apr. 10, 2007 ....... S.372 .................. Intelligence Authorization Act ...................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 12, 2007 ...... 94–3 No. 129 I 153 8737 

Apr. 12, 2007 ....... S.372 .................. Intelligence Authorization Act ...................................... Reid................................ Apr. 16, 2007 ...... 41–40 No. 130 F 153 8830 

Vote No. 130 reconsidered Apr. 17, 2007 ...... 50–45 No. 131 F 153 8954 

Apr. 16, 2007 ....... S.378 .................. Court Security Improvement Act................................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 18, 2007 ...... 93–3 No. 133 I 153 9111 

Apr. 16, 2007 ....... S.3 ...................... Medicare Prescription Drug Price Negotiation........... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 18, 2007 ...... 55–42 No. 132 F 153 9108 

Apr. 18, 2007 ....... S.378 .................. Court Security Improvement Act................................. Reid................................ Apr. 19, 2007 ...... no vote N 153 10395 
153

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

May 1, 2007 ........ S.1082 ................ Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments................... 

S.Amdt.990 Reid................................ May 3, 2007 ....... 63–28 No. 150 I 153 11235 

May 3, 2007 ........ H.R.1495 ............ Water Resources Development Act of 2007 ................ 

motion to proceed Reid................................ May 10, 2007 ..... 89–7 No. 162 I 153 11950 

May 3, 2007 ........ S.1082 ................ Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments................... Reid................................ May 8, 2007 ....... UC W 153 11592 

May 3, 2007 ........ S.1082 ................ Prescription Drug User Fee Amendments................... 

committee substitute amendment Reid................................ May 7, 2007 ....... 82–8 No. 152 I 153 11372 

May 14, 2007 ...... S.1348 ................ Comprehensive Immigration Reform ........................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ May 21, 2007 ..... 69–23 No. 173 I 153 13286 

May 15, 2007 ...... H.R.1495 ............ Water Resources Development Act of 2007................. 

S.Amdt.1135 McConnell...................... May 16, 2007 ..... 87–9 No. 169 I 153 12591 

May 15, 2007 ...... H.R.1495 ............ Water Resources Development Act of 2007................. 

S.Amdt.1134 McConnell...................... May 16, 2007 ..... 52–44 No. 168 F 153 12590 

May 15, 2007 ...... H.R.2206 ............ Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, 

and Iraq Accountability Appropriations 

Reid................................ May 16, 2007 ..... UC W 153 12586 

May 15, 2007 ...... H.R.2206 ............ Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, 

and Iraq Accountability Appropriations S.Amdt.1123 Reid................................ May 17, 2007 ..... 94–1 No. 171 I 153 12945 

May 15, 2007 ...... H.R.1495 ............ Water Resources Development Act of 2007................. 

S.Amdt.1097 Reid................................ May 16, 2007 ..... UC W 153 12639 

May 15, 2007 ...... H.R.1495 ............ Water Resources Development Act of 2007................. 

S.Amdt.1098 Reid................................ May 16, 2007 ..... 29–67 No. 167 F 153 12589 

June 5, 2007 ....... S.1348 ................ Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007....... Reid................................ June 7, 2007 ...... 34–61 No. 204 F 153 15053 

June 5, 2007 ....... S.1348 ................ Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2007....... 

S.Amdt.1150 Reid................................ June 7, 2007 ...... 33–63 No. 203 F 153 15053 

Vote No. 203 reconsidered June 7, 2007 ...... 45–50 No. 206 F 153 15088 

June 6, 2007 ....... H.R.6 .................. CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.......................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 11, 2007 ..... 91–0 No. 208 I 153 15224 

June 6, 2007 ....... S.J.Res.14 .......... Senate Expression of “no confi dence” in Attorney 

General Alberto Gonzales motion to proceed Reid................................ June 11, 2007 ..... 53–38 No. 207 F 153 15223 

June 19, 2007 ..... H.R.800 .............. Employee Free Choice Act of 2007............................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 26, 2007 .... 51–48 No. 227 F 153 17286 

June 19, 2007 ..... H.R.6 .................. CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.......................................... Reid................................ June 21, 2007 .... 62–32 No. 225 I 153 16952 

June 19, 2007 ..... H.R.6 .................. CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.......................................... 

S.Amdt.1502 Reid................................ June 21, 2007 .... 61–32 No. 224 I 153 16906 

June 19, 2007 ..... H.R.6 .................. CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.......................................... 

S.Amdt.1704 Reid................................ June 21, 2007 .... 57–36 No. 223 F 153 16905 

June 20, 2007 ..... S.1639 ................ Comprehensive Immigration Reform ........................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 26, 2007 .... 64–35 No. 228 I 153 17287 

June 26, 2007 ..... S.1639 ................ Comprehensive Immigration Reform ........................... Reid................................ June 28, 2007 .... 46–53 No. 235 F 153 17840 

June 27, 2007 ..... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 28, 2007 .... UC W 153 17916 

July 10, 2007 ...... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

S.Amdt.2012 Reid................................ July 11, 2007 ..... 56–41 No. 241 F 153 18382 

July 16, 2007 ...... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

S.Amdt.2241 McConnell...................... July 17, 2007 ..... UC W 153 19278 

July 16, 2007 ...... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

S.Amdt.2087 Reed............................... July 18, 2007 ..... 52–47 No. 252 F 153 19421 
154

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

July 17, 2007 ...... H.R.2638 ............ Department of Homeland Security Appropriations 

Act motion to proceed Reid................................ July 19, 2007 ..... UC W 153 19485 

July 26, 2007 10.... H.R.976 .............. Children’s Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2007 motion to proceed Reid................................ July 30, 2007 ..... 80–0 No. 285 I 153 21190 

July 31, 2007 ...... S.1 ...................... Legislative Transparency and Accountability Act....... 

motion to concur in the House amendment Reid................................ Aug. 2, 2007 ....... 80–17 No. 293 I 153 22858 

Aug. 1, 2007 ........ H.R.976 .............. Children’s Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2007 

Reid................................ Aug. 2, 2007 ....... no vote N 153 22632 

Aug. 1, 2007 ........ H.R.976 .............. Children’s Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2007 

S.Amdt.2530 Reid................................ Aug. 2, 2007 ....... no vote N 153 22632 

Sept. 12, 2007 ..... S.1257 ................ District of Columbia House Voting Rights Act of 

2007............................................................................motion to proceed Reid................................ Sept. 18, 2007 .... 57–42 No. 339 F 153 24612 

Sept. 17, 2007 ..... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

S.Amdt.2022 Reid................................ Sept. 19, 2007 .... 56–43 No. 340 F 153 24813 

Sept. 25, 2007 ..... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

S.Amdt.3047 Casey .............................. Sept. 27, 2007 .... UC V 153 25828 

Sept. 25, 2007 ..... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

S.Amdt.3035 Reid................................ Sept. 27, 2007 .... 60–39 No. 350 I 153 25828 

Sept. 26, 2007 ..... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... McConnell...................... Oct. 1, 2007 ........ no vote N 153 26021 Sept. 26, 2007 ..... H.R.976 .............. Children’s Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2007 motion to concur with House amendments to Senate amendments 

Reid................................ Sept. 27, 2007 .... 69–30 No. 352 I 153 25829 

Sept. 26, 2007 ..... H.R.1585 ............ National Defense Authorization FY08......................... 

S.Amdt.2011 McConnell...................... Sept. 27, 2007 .... 89–6 No. 357 I 153 25896 

Oct. 2, 2007 ......... H.R.3222 ............ Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2008....... Reid................................ Oct. 3, 2007 ........ UC W 153 26437 

Oct. 22, 2007 ....... S.2205 ................ DREAM Act of 2007...................................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Oct. 24, 2007 ...... 52–44 No. 394 F 153 28101 

Oct. 23, 2007 ....... PN2 .................... Judicial nominee Leslie Southwick.............................. McConnell...................... Oct. 24, 2007 ...... 62–35 No. 392 I 153 28094 Oct. 24, 2007 ....... S.294 .................. Amtrak Reauthorization ............................................... 

S.Amdt.3452 McConnell...................... Oct. 25, 2007 ...... UC W 153 28424 

Oct. 26, 2007 ....... H.R.3963 ............ Children’s Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2007 motion to proceed Reid................................ Oct. 31, 2007 ...... 62–33 No. 401 I 153 28795 

Oct. 26, 2007 ....... S.294 .................. Amtrak Reauthorization ............................................... Reid................................ Oct. 30, 2007 ...... 79–13 No. 398 I 153 28708 

Nov. 1, 2007 ........ H.R.3963 ............ Children’s Health Insurance Program 

Reauthorization Act of 2007 

Reid................................ Nov. 1, 2007 ....... 65–30 No. 402 I 153 29094 

Nov. 14, 2007 ...... H.R.2419 ............ Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007............... Reid................................ Dec. 14, 2007 ..... UC W 153 34464 
155

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

Nov. 14, 2007 ...... H.R.2419 ............ Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007............... 

S.Amdt.3500 Reid................................ Nov. 16, 2007 ..... 55–42 No. 412 F 153 31856 

Nov. 15, 2007 ...... H.R.4156 ............ Orderly and Responsible Iraq Redeployment 

Appropriations Act, 2008 motion to proceed Reid................................ Nov. 16, 2007 ..... 53–45 No. 411 F 153 31855 

Nov. 15, 2007 ...... S.2340 ................ Department of Defense Emergency Supplemental 

Appropriations FY08 motion to proceed McConnell...................... Nov. 16, 2007 ..... 45–53 No. 410 F 153 31855 

Dec. 4, 2007 ........ H.R.3996 ............ Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007................................ 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Dec. 6, 2007 ....... 46–48 No. 414 F 153 33275 

Dec. 5, 2007 ........ H.R.2419 ............ Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007............... 

S.Amdt.3500 Reid................................ Dec. 13, 2007 ..... 78–12 No. 431 I 153 34244 

Dec. 7, 2007 ........ H.R.6 .................. Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy 

Effi ciency Act of 2007 motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendments 

Reid................................ Dec. 7, 2007 ....... 53–42 No. 416 F 153 33491 

Dec. 12, 2007 ...... H.R.6 .................. Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection, and Energy 

Effi ciency Act of 2007 motion to concur in the House amendments to the 

Senate amendments 

Reid................................ Dec. 13, 2007 ..... 59–40 No. 425 F 153 34181 

Dec. 14, 2007 ...... S.2248 ................ FISA Amendments Act of 2007..................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Dec. 17, 2007 ..... 76–10 No. 435 I 153 34555 

Dec. 18, 2007 ...... H.R.2764 ............ Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008 ........................ 

motion to concur in the House amendments to the Senate amendment 

Reid................................ Dec. 18, 2007 ..... 44–51 No. 436 F 153 36074 

Jan. 24, 2008 ...... S.2248 ................ FISA Amendments Act of 2007..................................... 

S.Amdt.3918 Reid................................ Jan. 28, 2008 ..... 48–45 No. 4 F 154 938 

Jan. 24, 2008 ...... S.2248 ................ FISA Amendments Act of 2007..................................... 

S.Amdt.3911 McConnell...................... Jan. 28, 2008 ..... 48–45 No. 3 F 154 937 

Jan. 31, 2008 ...... H.R.5140 ............ Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the 

American People Act of 2008 motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 4, 2008 ....... 80–4 No. 5 I 154 1277 

Feb. 5, 2008 ........ H.R.5140 ............ Recovery Rebates and Economic Stimulus for the 

American People Act of 2008 S.Amdt.3983 Reid................................ Feb. 6, 2008 ....... 58–41 No. 8 F 154 1429 

Feb. 8, 2008 ........ S.2248 ................ FISA Amendments Act of 2007..................................... Reid................................ Feb. 12, 2008 ..... 69–29 No. 19 I 154 1906 

Feb. 11, 2008....... H.R.2082 ............ Intelligence Authorization Act FY08............................ 

conference report Reid................................ Feb. 13, 2008 ..... 92–4 No. 21 I 154 2025 

Feb. 14, 2008 ...... H.R.3221 ............ Housing and Economic Recovery Act........................... 

Motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 28, 2008 ..... 48–46 No. 35 F 154 2867 

Vote No. 35 reconsidered Apr. 1, 2008 ........ 94–1 No. 86 I 154 4593 

Feb. 14, 2008 ...... S.1200 ................ Indian Health Care Improvement Act Amendments 

of 2007 

Reid................................ Feb. 25, 2008 ..... UC W 154 2378 

Feb. 14, 2008 ...... S.1200 ................ Indian Health Care Improvements Act Amendments 

of 2007 S.Amdt.3899 Reid................................ Feb. 25, 2008 ..... 85–2 No. 28 I 154 2374 

Feb. 25, 2008 ...... S.2634 ................ Global Strategy Report to Combat al Qaeda............... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 27, 2008 ..... 89–3 No. 34 I 154 2712 
156

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Feb. 25, 2008 ...... S.2633 ................ Safe redeployment of United States troops from Iraq 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Feb. 26, 2008 ..... 70–24 No. 33 I 154 2522 

Feb. 29, 2008 ...... S.2663 ................ Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act.... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Mar. 3, 2008 ....... 86–1 No. 36 I 154 S2983 

Mar. 5, 2008 ........ S.2663 ................ Consumer Product Safety Commission Reform Act.... Reid................................ Mar. 6, 2008 ....... UC W 154 3461 

Apr. 4, 2008 ......... S.2739 ................ Consolidated Natural Resources Act of 2008 ............... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 9, 2008 ........ UC W 154 5492 

Apr. 4, 2008 ......... H.R.3221 ............ Housing and Economic Recovery Act........................... Reid................................ Apr. 9, 2008 ........ UC W 154 5493 

Apr. 4, 2008 ......... H.R.3221 ............ Housing and Economic Recovery Act........................... 

S.Amdt.4387 Reid................................ Apr. 8, 2008 ........ 92–6 No. 93 I 154 5326 

Apr. 10, 2008 ....... H.R.1195 ............ SAFETEA amendments................................................ 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 14, 2008 ...... 93–1 No. 103 I 154 5858 

Apr. 16, 2008 ....... H.R.1195 ............ SAFETEA amendments................................................ Reid................................ Apr. 17, 2008 ...... UC W 154 6321 

Apr. 16, 2008 ....... H.R.1195 ............ SAFETEA amendments................................................ 

S.Amdt.4146 Reid................................ Apr. 17, 2008 ...... 90–2 No. 107 I 154 6332 

Apr. 17, 2008 ....... S.1315 ................ Veterans’ Benefi ts Enhancement Act........................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 22, 2008 ...... 94–0 No. 109 I 154 6462 

Apr. 21, 2008 ....... H.R.2831 ............ Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act......................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 23, 2008 ...... 56–42 No. 110 F 154 6623 

Apr. 24, 2008 ....... H.R.2881 ............ FAA Reauthorization.................................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Apr. 28, 2008 ...... 88–0 No. 114 I 154 7034 

May 1, 2008 ........ H.R.2881 ............ FAA Reauthorization.................................................... Reid................................ May 6, 2008 ....... UC W 154 7756 

May 1, 2008 ........ H.R.2881 ............ FAA Reauthorization.................................................... 

S.Amdt.4627 Reid................................ May 6, 2008 ....... 49–42 No. 115 F 154 7756 

May 2, 2008 ........ S.2284 ................ Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act ......... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ May 6, 2008 ....... 90–1 No. 116 I 154 7758 

May 7, 2008 ........ H.R.980 .............. Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act 

of 2007 motion to proceed Dodd............................... May 13, 2008 ..... 69–29 No. 126 I 154 8493 

May 7, 2008 ........ S.2284 ................ Flood Insurance Reform and Modernization Act ......... 

S.Amdt.4720 McConnell...................... May 13, 2008 ..... no vote N 154 8477 

May 14, 2008 ...... H.R.980 .............. Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act 

of 2007 

Reid................................ May 15, 2008 ..... UC W 154 9419 

May 14, 2008 ...... H.R.980 .............. Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act 

of 2007 S.Amdt.4751 Reid................................ May 15, 2008 ..... UC W 154 9419 

May 14, 2008 ...... H.R.980 .............. Public Safety Employer-Employee Cooperation Act 

of 2007 S.Amdt.4763 McConnell...................... May 14, 2008 ..... no vote N 154 8968 

May 20, 2008 ...... H.R.2642 ............ Supplemental Appropriations Act FY08...................... 

S.Amdt.4803 Reid................................ May 22, 2008 ..... UC W 154 9305 

May 22, 2008 ...... S.3036 ................ Climate Security Act..................................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 2, 2008 ...... 74–14 No. 141 I 154 11020 
157

Vote Key: 61–32 No. 2 (for example)—tally and Roll Call Vote number; UC—Unanimous Consent.Result Key: F—Failed; I—Invoked; N—No action; V—Vitiated; W—Withdrawn.

June 4, 2008 ....... S.3044 ................ Consumer-First Energy Act.......................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 4, 2008 ...... UC W 154 11328 

June 4, 2008 ....... S.3036 ................ Climate Security Act..................................................... 

S.Amdt.4825 Reid................................ June 6, 2008 ...... 48–36 No. 145 F 154 11758 

June 6, 2008 ....... H.R.6049 ............ Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 10, 2008 .... 50–44 No. 147 F 154 11917 

June 6, 2008 ....... S.3044 ................ Consumer-First Energy Act.......................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 10, 2008 .... 51–43 No. 146 F 154 11917 

June 10, 2008 ..... S.3101 ................ Medicare Improvement for Patients and Providers.... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 12, 2008 .... 54–39 No. 149 F 154 12415 

June 12, 2008 ..... H.R.6049 ............ Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 17, 2008 .... 52–44 No. 150 F 154 12563 

Vote No. 150 reconsidered July 29, 2008 ..... 53–43 No. 190 F 154 16668 

June 20, 2008 ..... H.R.3221 ............ Housing and Economic Recovery Act........................... 

S.Amdt.4983 Reid................................ June 24, 2008 .... 83–9 No. 155 I 154 13573 

June 23, 2008 ..... H.R.6304 ............ FISA Amendments Act of 2008..................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ June 25, 2008 .... 80–15 No. 158 I 154 13836 

June 26, 2008 ..... H.R.3221 ............ Housing and Economic Recovery Act........................... Reid................................ July 7, 2008 ....... 76–10 No. 163 I 154 14189 

June 26, 2008 ..... H.R.6304 ............ FISA Amendments Act of 2008..................................... Reid................................ July 9, 2008 ....... 72–26 No. 167 I 154 14380 

June 26, 2008 ..... H.R.6331 ............ Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers 

Act of 2008 motion to proceed Reid................................ June 26, 2008 .... 58–40 No. 160 F 154 14035 

Vote No. 160 reconsidered July 9, 2008 ....... 69–30 No. 169 I 154 14400 

July 8, 2008 ........ H.R.3221 ............ Housing and Economic Recovery Act........................... 

motion to disagree to House amendments Reid................................ July 10, 2008 ..... 84–12 No. 170 I 154 14629 

July 9, 2008 ........ S.2731 ................ Global HIV/AIDS reauthorization ................................ 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 11, 2008 ..... 65–3 No. 174 I 154 14724 

July 17, 2008 ...... S.3268 ................ Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act....................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 22, 2008 ..... 94–0 No. 183 I 154 15535 

July 23, 2008 ...... S.3186 ................ Low-Income Home Energy Assistance......................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 26, 2008 ..... 50–35 No. 187 F 154 16572 

July 23, 2008 ...... H.R.3221 ............ Housing and Economic Recovery Act........................... 

motion to concur to House amendment Reid................................ July 25, 2008 ..... 80–13 No. 185 I 154 16483 

July 23, 2008 ...... S.3268 ................ Stop Excessive Energy Speculation Act....................... Reid................................ July 25, 2008 ..... 50–43 No. 184 F 154 16482 

July 26, 2008 ...... S.3297 ................ Advancing America’s Priorities Act.............................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 28, 2008 ..... 52–40 No. 189 F 154 16621 

July 28, 2008 ...... S.3335 ................ Energy extenders package............................................ 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 30, 2008 ..... 51–43 No. 192 F 154 16983 

July 28, 2008 ...... S.2035 ................ Free Flow of Information Act....................................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 30, 2008 ..... 51–43 No. 191 F 154 16981 

July 30, 2008 ...... S.3001 ................ National Defense Authorization FY09......................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ July 31, 2008 ..... 51–39 No. 195 F 154 17660 

Vote No. 195 reconsidered Sept. 8, 2008 ...... 83–0 No. 197 I 154 17973 

Sept. 12, 2008 ..... S.3001 ................ National Defense Authorization FY09......................... Reid................................ Sept. 16, 2008 .... 61–32 No. 200 I 154 19115 

Sept. 17, 2008 ..... H.R.6049 ............ Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act.................... 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Sept. 18, 2008 .... UC W 154 19698 

Sept. 17, 2008 ..... S.3297 ................ Advancing America’s Priorities Act.............................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Sept. 18, 2008 .... UC W 154 19698 
158

Disposition of Cloture Motions, 1917–2008—Continued

Motions Filed Action and Result Congressional Record

Congress and

Filing Date Measure Subject Motion Filed By Date Vote & Vote number Result (see key) Volume Page

Sept. 26, 2008 ..... H.R.2638 ............ Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/

Continuing Resolution FY09 motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment 

Whitehouse.................... Sept. 27, 2008 .... 83–12 No. 207 I 154 22517 

Sept. 26, 2008 ..... H.R.2638 ............ Department of Homeland Security Appropriations/

Continuing Resolution FY09 motion to concur in the House amendment with an amendment 

Reid................................ Sept. 26, 2008 .... UC V 154 22465 

Sept. 27, 2008 ..... H.R.2095 ............ Federal Railroad Safety Improvement Act of 2007..... 

motion to concur in the House amendment to the Senate amendment 

Reid................................ Sept. 29, 2008 .... 69–17 No. 209 I 154 22989 

Nov. 19, 2008 ...... H.R.6867 ............ Unemployment Compensation Act of 2008.................. 

motion to proceed Reid................................ Nov. 20, 2008 ..... 89–6 No. 214 I 154 24303 

Dec. 10, 2008 ...... H.R.7005 ............ Alternative Minimum Tax Relief Act (vehicle for the 

auto bailout) motion to proceed Reid................................ Dec. 11, 2008 ...... 52–35 No. 215 F 154 24756 

1 Motion modifi ed by UC to apply to the committee substitute amendment (124 Cong. Rec. 34549). 2 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (135 Cong. Rec. 28101) . 3 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (135 Cong. Rec. 28101) . 4 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (136 Cong. Rec. 21929) . 5 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (136 Cong. Rec. 24553) . 6 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (136 Cong. Rec. 25114) . 7 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (136 Cong. Rec. 25114) . 8 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (136 Cong. Rec. 25114) . 9 Cloture petition not fi led, cloture vote ordered by UC (136 Cong. Rec. 28881) .10 As passed in the House, H.R. 976 was the Small Business Tax Relief Act of 2007. In the Senate, the Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2007, was substituted in 

H.R. 976. 
(159)

FILIBUSTERS AND CLOTURE IN THE UNITED STATES 

SENATE: A SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY

GENERAL

“Again the Filibusteros.” New York Times Magazine, March 1, 1964, 

pp. 20–21.

Presents views of past fi libusters and considers the potential for 

a fi libuster of civil rights legislation.

Alter, Alison B., and Leslie Moscow McGranahan. “Reexamining the 

Filibuster and Proposal Powers in the Senate.” Legislative Studies 

Quarterly, vol. 25 (May 2000), pp. 259–284.

“Alters Rule of 100 Years.” New York Times, March 9, 1917, p. A1.

Describes adoption of fi rst cloture rule.

“The Art of Filibustering.” New York Times, January 31, 1915, p. C2.

Howard H. Baker, Jr. [Senator]. “Rule XXII: Don’t Kill It!” Washington Post, April 27, 1993, p. A17.

Responds to Cutler, “The Way to Kill Senate Rule XXII.”

Barkley, Alben W. [Vice President]. “Original Intent of Cloture Petition: Precedents Cited do not Apply.” Vital Speeches, vol. 15 (March 

15, 1949), pp. 324–327.

Original ruling of the Chair in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 95 (March 10, 1949), pp. 2172–2175. Traces precedents 

from Senate procedure for the use of cloture.

Beeman, Richard R. “Unlimited Debate in the Senate: The First 

Phase.” Political Science Quarterly, vol. 83 (September 1968), pp. 

418–434.

“An examination of the Senate’s early efforts to agree on guidelines for conduct during debate provides some insight into the upper chamber’s traditional reluctance to silence its members and 

demonstrates the haphazard way in which legislative precedents 

were established.”

Bell, Lauren Cohen. Filibustering in the U.S. Senate (Amherst, NY: 

Cambria Press, 2010).

Provides historical perspective on the fi libuster and considers 

infl uences on the incidence of fi libustering at both the institutional and individual level.

Bendavid, Naftali. “Filibuster threat? Start Talking.” Wall Street 

Journal, March 8, 2010, p. A3.

Reports on proposals to require fi libuster participants to continue debate in order to prevent a vote.

Bendiner, Robert. “Battle of Filibuster: New Round Opens.” New 

York Times Magazine, September 14, 1952, pp. 17, 26, 28.

“Foes of unlimited Senate debate center their attack on Rule 

XXII, which preserves cloture.”

Beth, Richard S. Review of Politics or Principle? by Binder and 

Smith, Federal Lawyer, vol. 45 (January 1998), pp. 52–54.
160

Beth, Richard S. “What We Don’t Know About Filibusters.” Paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the Western Political Science 

Association, Portland, Oregon, March 15–18, 1995.

Argues for distinguishing cloture motions, cloture votes, matters with cloture motions, matters fi libustered, and means of fi libustering. Presents data on the fi rst three of these.

Beth, Richard S., Valerie Heitshusen, Bill Heniff, Jr., and Elizabeth 

Rybicki. “Leadership Tools for Managing the U.S. Senate.” Paper 

presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science 

Association, Toronto, Canada, September 3–6, 2009.

Examines new developments in the use of cloture and other procedures to expedite business in the Senate.

Binder, Sarah A., Eric D. Lawrence, and Steven S. Smith. “Tracking 

the Filibuster, 1917 to 1996.” American Politics Research, vol. 30 

(January 2002), pp. 406–422.

Binder, Sarah A., Anthony J. Madonna, and Steven S. Smith. “Going 

Nuclear, Senate Style.” Perspectives on Politics, vol. 5 (November 

2007), pp. 729–740.

Binder, Sarah A. and Thomas E. Mann. “Slaying the Dinosaur: The 

Case for Reforming the Senate Filibuster.” The Brookings Review, 

vol. 13 (Summer 1995), pp. 42–46.

Companion piece to Frenzel, “Defending the Dinosaur.”

Binder, Sarah A. and Steven S. Smith. Politics or Principle?: Filibustering in the United States Senate (Washington, DC: Brookings 

Institution Press, 1997).

Recounts history of Senate debate and attempts to limit it; uses 

data analysis to assert that Senators’ votes on cloture refl ect positions on policy rather than procedure; includes proposals for reform.

Binder, Sarah A. and Steven S. Smith. “This Battle Isn’t New: The 

Filibustering of Judicial Nominations.” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, March 8, 2005, p. 6.

Bondurant, Emmet J. “The Senate Filibuster: The Politics of Obstruction.” Harvard Journal on Legislation, vol. 48 (2011), pp. 

467–513.

Bruhl, Aaron-Andrew P. “Burying the ‘Continuing Body’ theory of 

the Senate.” Iowa Law Review, vol. 95 (July 2010), pp. 1401–1465.

Burdette, Franklin L. Filibustering in the Senate (Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press, 1940. Reprint, New York: Russell & 

Russell, 1965).

History of Senate fi libustering and of parliamentary devices 

utilized for restraint of the practice surveys arguments for and 

against the “Senatorial privilege of virtually unlimited debate.”

Byrd, Robert C. [Senator]. The Senate, 1789–1989: Addresses on the 

History of the United States Senate, vol. 2, Wendy Wolff, U.S. Senate Historical Offi ce, ed. Bicentennial Edition (Washington, DC: 

GPO, 1991).

Chapter 5, “Extended Debate” (pp. 93–163), covers “Filibusters, 

1879–1917,” “The Cloture Rule,” “Filibusters, 1917–1964,” and 

“Filibusters, 1964–1989.”

Carlisle, Margo. “Changing the Rules of the Game in the U.S. Senate.” Policy Review, no. 7 (Winter 1979), pp. 79–92.

Argues for the continuity of Senate Rules and against the proposition that the fi rst day of a new Congress is procedurally distinc161

tive for considering rules changes. Argues that fi libusters “generally result in the kind of compromise typical of the Senate,” and 

are “intrinsic to the large state/small state balance fundamental 

to the Senate.”

Carlson, Peter. “1965–2010: The Filibuster Emerges as an Equal 

Opportunity Weapon.” American History, vol. 45 (October 2010), 

pp. 64–65.

Chafetz, Josh. “The Unconstitutionality of the Filibuster.” Connecticut Law Review, vol. 43 (May 2011), pp. 1103–1140.

Chafetz, Josh and Michael J. Gerhardt. “Debate: Is the Filibuster 

Constitutional?” University of Pennsylvania Law Review PENNumbra, vol. 158 (2010), pp. 245–267.

Clark, Champ [Speaker of the House]. “Cloture.” North American 

Review, vol. 201 (April 1915), pp. 516–520.

Clark, Joseph S. [Senator]. “With all Deliberate Delay; Some 

Thoughts on Streamlining the Senate.” New Republic, vol. 180 

(April 18, 1964), pp. 13–15.

Argues that “it is practically impossible to pass any legislation 

to which . . . [any] small group of determined Senators seriously 

objects unless it is done early in the session.”

“Cloture, Continuing Rules and the Constitution.” Minnesota Law 

Review, vol. 48 (April 1964), pp. 913–928.

Comment “concludes that cloture by consensus or majority rule 

is simply a matter of Senate choice; that since the Constitution requires neither, the Senate is free to make that choice; but that one 

Senate cannot bind succeeding Senates to its choice—a continuing 

Senate rule which limits the revision of the rules is void.”

Cohen, Richard E. “World’s Greatest Non-Debating Society.” National Journal, vol. 23 (August 3, 1991), p. 1940.

Cornyn, John [Senator]. “Our Broken Judicial Confi rmation Process 

and the Need for Filibuster Reform.” Harvard Journal of Law and 

Public Policy, vol. 27 (Fall 2003), pp. 181–230.

Cutler, Lloyd. “On Killing Senate Rule XXII (Cont’d).” Washington 

Post, May 3, 1993, p. A19.

Rejoinder on author’s “The Way to Kill Senate Rule XXII.”

Cutler, Lloyd. “The Way to Kill Senate Rule XXII,” Washington Post, April 19, 1993, p. A23.

Discusses whether the Senate requirement for super-majority 

cloture on rules changes is constitutional. Included, with several 

responses, in U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, Background Materials, S.Prt. 103–158, at pp. 

1105–1109.

Damon, Allan L. “Filibuster.” American Heritage, vol. 27 (December 

1975), pp. 11–15, 97.

Traces use of the fi libuster from 1790 to 1970 and observes that 

it is “protected by custom and the formal rules of Senate procedure . . . seen by some as the ultimate expression of free speech 

and by others as a capricious assault on democratic rule.”

Davidson, Roger H., David Kovenock, and Michael K. O’Leary. Congress in Crisis: Politics and Congressional Reform. New Frontiers 

in American Politics series (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Pub. Co., 

1966).

Chapter on “The 89th Congress and Reform” includes a section 

on cloture, “The Senate: an Old Order Passes” (pp. 148–151).
162

Dawes, Charles G. [Vice President]. “Address of the Vice President.” 

Remarks to the Senate. Congressional Record, vol. 67 (March 4, 

1925), pp. 3–4.

Criticizes Senate Rules for permitting a minority to prevent the 

Senate from reaching a vote.

Democratic Study Group, U.S. House of Representatives. A Look at 

the Senate Filibuster. Special Report 103–28, June 13, 1994.

Argues, based on number of cloture votes, that “the use of the 

Senate fi libuster has exploded in recent years;” includes list of 

“fi libusters identifi able in the U.S. Senate, 1789–1993.”

DeNardis, Lawrence Joseph. “The New Senate Filibuster: An Analysis of Filibustering and Gridlock in the U.S. Senate, 1977–1986.” 

Ph.D. dissertation, New York Univ., 1989.

Dewar, Helen. “Ex-Senators Urge Restraint on Filibusters.” Washington Post, June 23, 1994, p. A27.

Dewar, Helen. “Senate’s Republican Moderates: Filibuster Busters.” 

Washington Post, July 30, 1993, p. A7.

Donnelly, Thomas C. “Freedom of Speech in the Senate: A Restatement of the Case in Light of Contemporary Events.” Social Science, vol. 7 (July 1932), pp. 225–236.

Outlines the values of unlimited debate in the Senate and concludes that they “appear to . . . outweigh any benefi ts that might 

come from majority cloture.”

Douglas, Paul H. [Senator] “Fight against the Filibuster.” New Republic, vol. 128 (January 12, 1953), pp. 6–8.

Concludes that a fi libuster is “a method of preventing the majority from making its decisions effective. Hence it is a form of 

minority rule.”

Douglas, Paul H. [Senator]. The Filibuster. Lecture delivered under 

auspices of the Walter J. Shepard Foundation, March 29, 1957. 

(Columbus, Ohio: The Ohio State University, 1957).

Also available in box 1573, Paul Douglas Papers, Chicago History Museum Research Center.

Douglas, Paul H. [Senator]. “The Previous Question in the Senate.” 

Remarks in the Senate with inserted materials. Congressional Record, v. 103 (May 9, 1957), pp. 6669–6691.

Argues that the previous question rule in the early Senate 

permitted closing debate. Inserted materials include “Memorandum on the Development of Cloture and the Previous Question in 

American and British Practice” by Irving Brant.

Drew, Elizabeth B. “Politics of Cloture.” Reporter, vol. 31 (July 16, 

1964) pp. 19–23.

Durenberger, David and Walter F. Mondale [Senators]. “Preserve 

Senate Rules, Filibuster and All.” Star-Tribune [Minneapolis, Minnesota], May 5, 2005, p. A17.

Evans, C. Lawrence, and Walter Oleszek. “The Procedural Context 

of Senate Deliberation.” In Colton C. Campbell and Nicol C. Rae, 

eds. The Contentious Senate: Partisanship, Ideology, and the Myth 

of Cool Judgment (New York: Rowman and Littlefi eld, 2001), pp. 

107–127.

Fisk, Catherine and Erwin Chemerinsky. “The Filibuster.” Stanford 

Law Review, vol. 49 (January 1997), pp. 181–254.

Considers question of “entrenchment” of Senate Rules against 

change.
163

Flanders, Ralph E. [Senator] “What Ails the United States Senate?” 

New York Times Magazine, May 9, 1954, pp. 13, 60, 62, 64.

Evaluates three principal charges made against the Senate; responsibility, he argues, “rests outside as well as within.”

Foley, Michael. The New Senate: Liberal Infl uence on a Conservative Institution 1954–1972 (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 

1980).

Presents discussions on various fi libusters and how the use of 

this device has changed.

Frenzel, Bill [Representative]. “Defending the Dinosaur: The Case 

for Not Fixing the Filibuster.” The Brookings Review, vol. 13 (Summer 1995), pp. 47–49.

Companion piece to Binder and Mann, “Slaying the Dinosaur.”

Galloway, George B. Congress At the Crossroads (New York: Thomas 

Y. Crowell, 1946).

Galloway, George B. The Legislative Process in Congress (New York: 

Crowell, 1953).

The chapter on “Procedure in the Senate” includes a discussion 

on fi libustering (pp. 559–570).

Geoghegan, Thomas. “The Case for Busting the Filibuster.” Nation, 

vol. 289 (August 31, 2009), pp. 18–22.

Gerber, Lou. “The Senate Filibuster: Essential Shield or Parliamentary Fossil?” In remarks of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Congressional Record, vol. 125 (February 26, 1979), pp. 3230–3232.

Inserted article, from CWA [Communications Workers of America] News, June 1968, examines “the history of the Senate fi libuster and offers some insights on the use of this legislative tactic.”

Gilmour, John B. The Contest for Senate Cloture Reform, 1949–1975.

Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political 

Science Association, Chicago, Ill., August 31–September 3, 1995.

Gilmour, John B. Majority Rule in the Senate. Working Paper 94–

6. University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Governmental 

Studies, March, 1994.

Argues that the fi libuster had become increasingly partisan. 

Shorter version appears as “Senate Democrats Should Curb Use 

of the Filibuster.” Roll Call, January 24, 1994, p. 5.

Gold, Martin B. Senate Procedure and Practice (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefi eld, 2008).

Former counsel to a Senate majority leader presents detailed 

enumeration of Senate procedures.

Gold, Martin B. and Dimple Gupta. “The Constitutional Option to 

Change Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to 

Overcome the Filibuster.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public 

Policy, vol. 28 (Fall 2004), pp. 205–272.

Gorjanc, Laura T. “The Solution to the Filibuster Problem: Putting 

the Advice Back in Advice and Consent.” Case Western Reserve 

Law Review, vol. 54 (Summer 2004), pp. 1435–1463.

Gross, Bertram M. The Legislative Struggle: A Study in Social Combat (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1953. Reprint, Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1978).

Chapter entitled “Action on the Floor” includes a section, “Filibustering in the Senate: Who Filibusters?; Methods; Restraints.”

Hammond, Michel E., and Peter M. Weyrich. “Legislative Lords: 

Gag Rules and Permanent Staff.” In Gordon S. Jones and John 
164

A. Marini, eds. The Imperial Congress: Crisis in the Separation 

of Powers (New York, Pharos Books, published for the Heritage 

Foundation and the Claremont Institute, 1988), pp. 222–238.

Authors see the Senate as moving towards reduced protection 

for ideological minorities.

Harkin, Tom [Senator]. “Fixing the Filibuster.” Nation, vol. 291 (July 

19, 2010), pp. 6–8.

Advocates requiring declining supermajorities on successive cloture votes.

Haynes, George H. The Senate of the United States: Its History and 

Practice. 2 vol. (Boston: Houghton Miffl in, 1938).

Subsections of the chapter entitled “Debate in the Senate” examine cloture and fi libuster and detail proposals for reform.

Hertzberg, Hendrik. “Catch-XXII.” New Yorker, August 22–29, 1994, 

pp. 9–10.

Hertzberg, Hendrik. “Filibluster.” New Yorker, June 13, 2005, p. 63.

Hertzberg, Hendrik. “Nuke ‘Em.” New Yorker, March 14, 2005, p. 55.

Hertzberg, Hendrik. “Oh, Shut Up.” New Yorker, January 10, 2011, 

p. 43.

Hollings, Ernest [Senator]. “Senate Rules—Amendment of Rule 

XXII, Relating to Cloture.” Remarks in the Senate and inserted 

materials. Congressional Record, vol. 113 (January 23, 1967), pp. 

1278–1280.

Inserted materials include memorandum from Legislative Reference Service on “Revision of Senate Rules at the Opening of a 

New Congress.”

Humphrey, Hubert H. [Senator]. “Senate on Trial.” American Political Science Review, vol. 44 (September 1950), pp. 650–660.

Contends that by the device of fi libustering, organized blocs of 

Senators take advantage of its traditional right of free and unlimited debate in order to paralyze the Senate completely and prevent 

it from acting on any proposal to which the bloc is deeply opposed.

International Union United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural 

Implement Workers of America, CIO. Rule 22: An Unconstitutional Roadblock to Democratic Legislation. (Detroit: Solidarity 

House, 1951).

Javits, Jacob K. [Senator] “Again the Senate Debates Unlimited Debate.” New York Times Magazine, August 3, 1958, pp. 11, 41–42.

“The rule that facilitates fi libusters comes up for reconsideration and a Senator suggests how it can be changed without infringing on the traditional right of free discussion.”

Kearny, Edward N. and Robert A. Heineman. “The Senate Filibuster.” Perspectives on Political Science, vol. 26 (Winter 1997), pp. 

5–10.

Koger, Gregory. “Cloture Reform and Party Government in the Senate, 1918–1925.” Journal of Politics, vol. 68 (August 2006), pp. 

708–719.

Koger, Gregory. “Filibuster Reform in the Senate, 1913–1917.” In 

David Brady and Matthew McCubbins, eds. Party, Process, and 

Political Change in Congress, Volume 2: Further New Perspectives 

on the History of Congress (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press, 

2007), pp. 205–225.

Koger, Gregory. Filibustering: A Political History of Obstruction in 

the House and Senate (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010).
165

Presents data to identify fi libustering activity in Senate (and 

House) and explain it statistically; offers a theory of fi libustering 

strategy; and argues that increased fi libustering has been caused 

by the Senate’s shift from attrition to cloture as a strategy for 

overcoming fi libusters.

Koger, Gregory. “Filibustering and Majority Rule in the Senate: The 

Contest over Judicial Nominations, 2003–2005.” In Nathan W. 

Monroe, Jason R. Roberts, and David W. Rohde, eds. Why Not Parties? Party Effects in the United States Senate (Chicago: University 

of Chicago Press, 2008), pp. 159–177.

Korzi, Michael J. “The Nuclear Option: Judicial Filibusters and the 

Fate of Senate Tradition and Procedure.” Paper presented at the 

Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, 

September 1–4, 2005.

Krasno, Jonathan, and Gregory Robinson. “Fixing the Filibuster.” 

Roll Call, January 28, 2010, http://www.rollcall.com/news/-42771-

1.html.

Proposes procedural changes intended to increase burden on 

Senators conducting a fi libuster.

Lehman, Herbert H. [Senator]. “Reforms in Senatorial Procedure.” 

American Bar Association Journal, vol. 37 (October 1951), pp. 

774–776.

Levy, Robert A. “Two Cheers for Filibusters.” National Law Journal, June 7, 2010, p. 38.

Argues that the fi libuster is “valuable” but unconstitutional.

Lilly, Scott. From Deliberation to Dysfunction: It Is Time for Procedural Reform in the U.S. Senate ([Washington, DC:] Center for 

American Progress, March 2010).

Lodge, Henry Cabot [Senator]. “Obstruction in the Senate.” North 

American Review. vol. 157 (November 1893), pp. 523–529.

Includes oft-quoted remark that “to vote without debating is 

perilous, but to debate and never vote is imbecile.”

Luce, Robert. Legislative Procedure: Parliamentary Practices and the 

Course of Business in the Framing of Statutes (Boston: Houghton 

Miffl in, 1922. Reprint, New York: Da Capo Press, 1972).

Pages 270–302 address the topic of cloture.

McGinnis, John O. and Michael B. Rappaport. “In Praise of Supreme 

Court Filibusters.” Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy, vol. 33 (Winter 2010), pp. 39–46.

Magliocca, Gerard N. “Reforming the Filibuster.” Northwestern University Law Review, vol. 105 (2011) pp. 303–328.

Malbin, Michael J. “Compromise by Senate Eases Anti-Filibuster 

Rule.” National Journal Reports, vol. 7 (March 15, 1975), pp. 397–

400.

“The ramifi cations of the Senate’s eight-week fi ght that eased 

the rule governing cloture will be felt for years.”

Metzenbaum, Howard M. [Senator]. “Senate, Heal Thyself.” Washington Post, February 16, 1983, p. A19.

“One who has taken advantage of the Senate’s rules says they 

should be changed.”

Millhiser, Ian. “How to Kill the Filibuster with Only 51 Votes,” The 

American Prospect, January 29, 2010, at http://www.prospect.org/

cs/articles?article=how_to_kill_the_fi libuster_with_only_51_votes.
166

Argues that because acts of one Congress cannot bind a subsequent Congress, therefore the Rules of the previous Senate cannot 

be in effect at the beginning of the next Senate.

Morgan, Donald G. Congress and the Constitution (Cambridge, MA: 

Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966).

Discussion centers on the case of the Civil Rights Act.

Murphy, Troy E. “American Political Mythology and the Senate 

Filibuster.” Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 32 (Fall 1995), pp. 

90–108.

Myers, Francis J. [Senator]. “Limitation of Debate in the United 

States Senate.” Temple Law Quarterly, vol. 23 (July 1949), pp. 

1–12.

Discusses “the issues and results of the . . . 1949 Senate fi libuster over fi libustering.”

Nathanson, Iric. “Squeeze Play on the Senate Floor.” Nation, vol. 

225 (October 29, 1977), pp. 422–424.

Examines the use of the “post-cloture fi libuster” in the Senate’s 

natural gas deregulation debate of September–October 1977, noting that while the precedents will restrict this practice, they will 

not altogether eliminate it.

Norris, George W. [Senator]. “Reform of the Senate Rules: In Answer 

to Vice President Dawes.” Saturday Evening Post, February 13, 

1926, pp. 27, 169–170, 173.

Oleszek, Walter J. Congressional Procedures and the Policy Process,

8th ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2010).

Chapter on “Senate Floor Procedure” discusses such issues as 

changing trends in fi libusters, ending a fi libuster, post-cloture fi libuster, cloture rule loopholes, and revisions of Rule XXII.

Oppenheimer, Bruce I. “Changing Time Constraints on Congress: 

Historical Perspectives on the Use of Cloture.” In Lawrence C. 

Dodd and Bruce I. Oppenheimer, eds. Congress Reconsidered, 3rd 

ed. (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 1985), pp. 393–413.

Ornstein, Norman. “A Filibuster Fix.” New York Times, August 28, 

2010, p. A17.

Suggests requiring opponents to vote to continue debate.

Ornstein, Norman. “Filibuster Redux: Reform is Needed, but Tread 

Carefully.” Roll Call, May 21, 2003, p. 6.

Ornstein, Norman. “Rule XXII (Cont’d): Everybody Missed the 

Point.” Washington Post, May 11, 1993, p. A19.

Responds to Cutler, “The Way to Kill Senate Rule XXII.”

Ornstein, Norman. “Time to Reassess Filibuster to Keep Senate 

Functioning.” Roll Call, January 20, 2010, p. 5.

Overby, L. Marvin and Bell, Lauren C. “Rational Behavior or the 

Norm of Cooperation? Filibustering Among Retiring Senators.” 

Journal of Politics, vol. 66 (August 2004), pp. 906–924.

Packer, George. “The Empty Chamber.” New Yorker, August 9, 2010, 

pp. 38–52.

Pepper, George W. [Senator]. “Senate Cloture.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, vol. 74 (December 1925), pp. 131–138.

Details the events of a Senate fi libuster.

Potterf, Rex. M. “Limitation of Debate in the United States Senate: 

A Phase of the Law-Making Power.” Indiana Law Journal, vol. 1 

(March 1926), pp. 139–148.
167

Quayle, Dan [Senator]. “The Senate Makes the Case for Reform.” 

Remarks in the Senate. Congressional Record, v. 130 (September 

28, 1984), pp. 27658–27662.

Rauh, Joseph L., Jr. “A Proposal for Modifying the Filibuster Rule.” 

Washington Post, August 1, 1975, p. A17.

Proposes that the majority required for cloture decrease as debate lengthens.

Rauh, Joseph L., Jr. “Okay, so Change the Filibuster Rule.” Washington Post, September 25, 1982. p. A23.

Also in remarks of Senator Edward M. Kennedy, “The Filibuster Rule,” Congressional Record, v. 128 (September 23, 1982), pp. 

25922–25923.

Rawls, W. Lee. In Praise of Deadlock: How Partisan Struggle Makes 

Better Laws (Washington, DC: Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 

2009).

Rich, Spencer. “Allen a Master of New-Style Filibuster.” Washington 

Post, July 1, 1974, p. A2.

Discusses procedural tactics used by Senator James Allen.

Riddick, Floyd M. The United States Congress, Organization & Procedure (Manassas, VA: National Capitol Publishers, 1949).

In chapter on “Procedure in the Senate,” Parliamentarian of the 

Senate details Senate rules and includes a discussion of cloture.

Roberts, Steven V. “A Movement to Do Something About Filibusters.” New York Times, February 11, 1983, p. 16.

Rogers, Lindsay. The American Senate (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 

1926).

Rule XXII is considered in the chapter entitled “Cloture: the 

Senate.”

Rogers, Lindsay. “Senate and the Filibuster.” Survey, vol. 85 (May 

1949), pp. 263–266.

Further discussion appears in the issue of June 1949, p. 319.

Rogers, Lindsay, and [Senator] Jacob Javits. “The Filibuster Debate.” 

In Joseph S. Clark [Senator], ed. Congressional Reform: Problems 

and Prospects (New York: Thomas Y. Crowell, 1965), pp. 167–176.

Authors present pro and con views on the fi libuster.

Rosenthal, Alan. Toward Majority Rule in the United States Senate. Eagleton Institute Cases in Practical Politics, no. 25 (New York: 

McGraw-Hill, 1962).

Case study of the 86th and 87th Congresses includes extensive 

discussion of Rule XXII regarding civil rights legislation and the 

campaign for majority cloture.

Russell, Richard B. [Senator]. “Russell Defends the Filibuster.” New 

York Times Magazine, March 15, 1964, p. 20.

Sancton, Thomas. “Our House of Lords: Effort to Break the Filibuster.” Nation, vol. 168 (March 19, 1949), pp. 322–324.

Examines the events surrounding the Senate vote against the 

Truman Administration’s civil rights program in light of debate in 

the Senate over the rules regarding the fi libuster.

Scherer, Nancy. Scoring Points: Politicians, Activists, and the Lower Federal Court Appointment Process (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford 

Univ. Press, 2005).

Chapter discusses “The Rise of Senate Obstructionism in the 

Judicial Confi rmation Process.”
168

Schwartz, Eleanor N. “Filibuster!” Constitution, vol. 6 (Spring 1994), 

pp. 4–8.

“The Senate Filibuster.” Supreme Court Debates, vol. 9 (March 2006), 

pp. 68–96.

Shuman, Howard E. “Senate Rules and the Civil Rights Bill: A Case 

Study.” American Political Science Review, vol. 51 (December 

1957), pp. 955–975.

Examines how Senate rules regarding cloture and fi libuster “affected the course of the civil rights debate and the strategy on 

both sides in the 1956 and 1957 sessions.”

Sinclair, Barbara. “The 60-Vote Senate.” In Bruce I. Oppenheimer, 

ed. U.S. Senate Exceptionalism (Columbus: Ohio State Univ. 

Press, 2002), pp. 241–261.

Sinclair, Barbara. The Transformation of the U.S. Senate (Baltimore: 

Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1989).

Includes discussion of fi libuster tactics on pp. 125–138.

Sinclair, Ward. “Senate Filibuster: Some Call It Tyranny, Others 

Freedom.” Washington Post, June 15, 1978, p. D3.

Smith, Steven S. “The Senate Syndrome.” In Burdette A. Loomis, 

ed., The U.S. Senate: From Deliberation to Dysfunction (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2012), pp. 132–158.

Smith, Steven S. “The Senate Needs to be Fixed.” Roll Call, vol. 38 

(April 22, 1993), pp. 22–23, 26.

Advocates procedures to limit “holds” and to permit limiting 

nongermane amendments.

Specter, Arlen [Senator]. “Procedural Tactics.” Remarks in the Senate. Congressional Record, vol. 153 (February 7, 2007), pp. 3296–

3298.

Specter, Arlen [Senator]. “Senate Rules Change.” Remarks in the 

Senate. Congressional Record, vol. 153 (February 8, 2007), pp. 

3489–3491.

Specter, Michael. “Getting an Earful in the Senate.” Washington 

Post, March 26, 1986, p. A17.

Stephanopolous, Nicholas. “Veil Thine Eyes.” New Republic, December 14, 2009, at http://www.tnr.com/article/metro-policy/veil-thineeyes.

Proposes to achieve change in Senate rules by postponing their 

effective date for several years.

Stevens, Ted [Senator]. “Reform of the Standing Rules of the Senate.” Remarks in the Senate and inserted materials. Congressional Record, vol. 130 (October 2, 1984), pp. 28188–28192.

Discusses, and incorporates, his resolution (S. Res. 461) proposing changes in Senate procedure.

Talmadge, Herman [Senator]. “No Gag on Our Senate.” American 

Mercury, vol. 86 (May 1958), pp. 43–46.

Argues that “state sovereignty is protected in Congress by the 

right of unlimited Senate debate.”

Taylor, Stuart Jr. “Filibusters: Two Wrongs Won’t Make Things 

Right.” National Journal, vol. 37 (May 7, 2005), pp. 1365–1366.

Tomasky, Michael. Review of Politics or Principle by Binder and 

Smith, and Filibustering by Koger, New York Review of Books, vol. 

57 (September 30, 2010), pp. 11–13.

Toobin, Jeffrey. “Blowing Up the Senate: the Political Scene.” New 

Yorker, March 7, 2005, p. 42.
169

Udall, Tom [Senator]. “The Constitutional Option: Reforming the 

Rules of the Senate to Restore Accountability and Reduce Gridlock.” Harvard Law & Policy Review, vol. 5 (Winter 2011), pp. 

115–133.

Vandenberg, Arthur H. [Senator]. “Cloture: Only Senate Has Right 

to Change the Law.” Vital Speeches, vol. 14 (August 15, 1948), pp. 

661–662.

Vandenberg, Arthur H. [Senator]. “Parliamentary Decision on Cloture.” Vital Speeches, vol. 15 (April 1, 1949), pp. 374–377.

Originally “Amendment of Cloture Rule,” remarks in the Senate, Congressional Record, vol. 95, March 11, 1949, pp. 2227–2230. 

Contends that “Senate rights [are] involved, not just a defi nition 

of words.”

Victor, Kirk. “Judgment Day.” National Journal, vol. 37 (May 7, 

2005), pp. 1372–1377.

Wawro, Gregory J. and Eric Schickler. Filibuster: Obstruction and 

Lawmaking in the U.S. Senate (Princeton: Princeton University 

Press, 2006).

A study of Senate lawmaking in the 19th century that seeks to 

explain why “obstruction” did not occur in the 19th century and 

why the Senate adopted a formal cloture rule in 1917.

Wawro, Gregory J. and Eric Schickler. “Where’s the Pivot? Obstruction and Lawmaking in the Pre-Cloture Senate.” American Journal of Political Science, vol. 48 (October 2004), pp. 758–774.

Wawro, Gregory J. and Eric Schickler. “Cloture Reform Reconsidered.” In Party, Process, and Political Change in Congress, Volume 

2: Further New Perspectives on the History of Congress, David W. 

Brady and Matthew D. McCubbins, eds. (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford Univ. Press, 2007), pp. 226–248.

Wheildon, L.B. “Majority Cloture for the Senate.” Editorial Research 

Reports, vol. 1 (March 1947), pp. 201–218.

Partial contents: Filibuster and the Senate rules; Development 

of the Senate fi libuster; Origin of fi libuster as a parliamentary 

weapon; Remedies adopted by other legislative bodies; Proposed 

remedies for Senate fi libusters.

Wicker, Tom. “Winds of Change in the Senate.” New York Times 

Magazine, September 12, 1965, pp. 52–53, 119, 120, 122, 124.

Details changes in Senate rules and party coalitions, and discusses efforts to change fi libustering.

Will, George F. “The Framers’ Intent,” Washington Post, April 25, 

1993, p. C7.

Responds to Cutler, “The Way to Kill Senate Rule XXII.”

Willoughby, William F. Principles of Legislation Organization and 

Administration (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1934).

Section on limitation of obstruction discusses Rule XXII (pp. 

486–500).

Wilson, Woodrow [President]. “A Statement.” In The Papers of Woodrow Wilson, Arthur S. Link, ed., vol. 41 (Princeton: Princeton 

Univ. Press, 1983), pp. 318–320.

Wilson’s statement, criticizing the “little group of willful men” 

who blocked his armed ship bill, that precipitated Senate adoption 

of its fi rst cloture rule. Also as “Text of the President’s Statement 

to the Public,” New York Times, March 5, 1917, p. 1.
170

Wolfi nger, Raymond E. “Filibusters: Majority Rule, Presidential leadership, and Senate Norms.” In Readings on Congress, Raymond 

E. Wolfi nger, ed. (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971), pp. 

286–305.

Yang, Jia Lynn. “Lots of Talk, Little Action.” National Journal, vol. 

35 (July 5, 2003), pp. 2180–2181.

CONGRESSIONAL PUBLICATIONS

(IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

U.S. Congress, Senate, Debate in the United States Senate, Extracts 

from the Journal of the United States Senate pertaining to the 

limitation of debate in the Senate of the United States, prepared 

by the Legislative Reference Division, Library of Congress, 69th 

Cong., special sess., Senate Print (Washington, DC: GPO, 1917).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Senate Filibusters, Extracts from the Congressional Globe and Congressional Record relating to fi libusters 

in the Congress of the United States, prepared by the Legislative 

Reference Division, Library of Congress, 69th Cong., special sess., 

Senate Print (Washington, DC: GPO, 1917).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Amending Rule XXII, Relating to Cloture, 80th Cong., 1st sess., 

S.Rept. 80–87 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1947).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Amending Senate Rule Relating to Cloture, Hearings, 80th Cong., 

1st sess., January and February 1947 (Washington, DC: GPO, 

1947).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Limitation on Debate in the Senate, 81st Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 

81–69 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1949).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Limitation of Debate in the Senate, Hearings, 82nd Cong., 1st sess. 

(Washington, DC: GPO, 1951).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Revision of Senate Cloture Rules, Hearings, 82nd Cong., 1st sess. 

(Washington, DC: GPO, 1951).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Amending the Cloture Rule with Respect to the Number Required 

for Adoption of a Cloture Motion, 82nd Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 

82–1256 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1952).

Report on S. Res. 203.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Limitation of Debate, 83rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 83–268 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1953).

Report on proposal to amend cloture rule with respect to time 

limit and super-majority required.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Proposed Amendments to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate, Relating to Cloture, Hearings, 85th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1957).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Special Subcommittee on Amendments to Rule XXII, Proposed 

Amendments to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, 

Relating to Cloture, Report to the Committee, consisting of the in171

dividual views of Senator Herman E. Talmadge and Senator Jacob 

K. Javits, Committee Print, 85th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington, 

DC: GPO, 1958).

Report on S. Res. 17.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Proposed Amendments to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate, Relating to Cloture, 85th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Rept. 85–

1509, 2 parts (Washington, DC: GPO, 1958).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Amending Rule XXII to Provide for Cloture by Affi rmative Vote of 

Three-Fifths of Senators Present and Voting, 87th Cong., 1st sess., 

S.Rept. 87–870 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1961).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Proposed Amendments to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate, Relating to Cloture, Committee Print, 87th Cong., 1st sess. 

(Washington, DC: GPO, 1961).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

The Previous Question: Its Standing as a Precedent for Cloture in 

the United States Senate, presented by Mr. Russell, 87th Cong., 

2nd sess., S.Doc. 87–104 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1962).

Prepared by Dr. Joseph Cooper. Includes descriptions of the use 

of the previous question in the Senate before 1806.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Subcommittee on Standing Rules of the Senate. Proposed Amendments to Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, Relating to 

Cloture, Hearings, 89th Cong., 1st sess., February 23 and March 

1, 1965 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1965).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate, Adverse report, together with minority and additional views, to accompany S. Res. 

6, 89th Cong., 1st sess., March 9, 1975, S.Rept. 75 (Washington, 

DC: GPO, 1975).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Amending the Standing Rules of the Senate Relative to Cloture, 

Reading of the Journal, Amendments, and Conference Reports, 

and Appeals from the Chair on Quorums, Report together with minority views to accompany S. Res. 5, 95th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 

95–91 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1977).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Report of the Study Group on Senate Practices and Procedures, Committee Print, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Prt. 98–242 (Washington, 

DC: GPO, 1984).

Presents text of the report of the “Pearson-Ribicoff Commission,” made up of former Senators James B. Pearson and Abraham A. Ribicoff, including recommendations on Senate debate and 

scheduling.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Temporary Select Committee to Study the 

Senate Committee System, Report Together with Proposed Resolutions, Committee Print, 98th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Prt 98–254 

(Washington, DC: GPO, 1984).

Report of “Quayle Committee” chaired by Senator Dan Quayle 

includes recommendations on nongermane amendments, fi libusters, and cloture.
172

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, 99th Cong., 1st sess., Senate Prt. 99–95 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1985).

Most recent previous edition of the present document. Earlier 

editions appeared in 1963, 1971, 1973, 1975, and 1977. Previously, the Legislative Reference Service (now Congressional Research 

Service) issued corresponding materials under its own auspices in 

1948, 1951, 1956, and 1962.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, Report on Senate Operations, 1988, Committee Print, 100th Cong., 

2nd sess., September 20, 1988, S.Prt. 100–129 (Washington, DC: 

GPO, 1988).

Includes discussion of the recommendations of the “PearsonRibicoff Commission” of 1982–1983 and those of the Temporary 

Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System of 1984, 

as well as of issues such as delay in the Senate, limiting debate 

on the motion to proceed, and germaneness of amendments. Also 

in Senator Wendell H. Ford, remarks in the Senate and inserted 

materials, Congressional Record, v. 134 (September 22, 1988), pp. 

S13052–13068.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Report on Senate Operations, 1988, Appendix, Committee Print,

100th Cong., 2nd sess., S.Prt. 100–141 (Washington, DC: GPO, 

1988).

Includes compilations of (1) testimony and other submissions 

to the Committee by Senators and others, and (2) Congressional 

Research Service products on proposals for change in Senate procedure from the 96th through 100th Congress.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Riddick’s Senate Procedure: Precedents and 

Practices, by Floyd M. Riddick, Parliamentarian Emeritus, and 

Alan S. Frumin, Parliamentarian, with a foreword by Robert C. 

Byrd; revised and edited by Frumin, 101st Cong., 2nd sess., S.Doc. 

101–28 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1992).

Offi cial handbook of Senate precedent by Parliamentarians of 

the Senate includes chapter on “Cloture Procedure.”

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Congressional Reorganization: Options for Change, Report of the 

Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress to the 

Joint Committee, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Prt. 103–19 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Chapter 10 addresses “Floor Deliberation in Congress.”

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Operations of the Congress: Testimony of House and Senate Leaders, Hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., January 26, 1993, S.Hrg. 

103–10 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Includes opening statements from Senator David L. Boren, Senate Co-Chair of the Joint Committee, and Senator Pete V. Domenici, Senate Co-Vice Chair of the Joint Committee; testimony by 

Senator George J. Mitchell, Senate Majority Leader, and Senator 

Robert Dole, Senate Republican Leader; and statements by Senators David Pryor and Harry Reid.
173

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Operations of the Congress: Testimony of Hon. Robert C. Byrd, 

Hon. Christopher S. Bond, Hon. Charles E. Grassley, and Hon. 

Hank Brown, Hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., February 2, 1993, 

S.Hrg. 103–26 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Testimony of former Majority Leader Byrd includes at pp. 73–

101 “chapters on congressional reform from Senator Byrd’s books, 

The Senate 1790–1989, Addresses on the History of the Senate, Volumes 1 and 2.”

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Operations of the Congress: Testimony from Hon. Wendell Ford; 

Hon. Karen Shepherd; Hon. Eric D. Fingerhut; Hon. Tillie Fowler; 

Hon. Peter G. Torkildsen; Hon. Patty Murray; Hon. Robert F. Bennett; Hon. Paul Coverdell, Hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., April 

1, 1993, S.Hrg. 103–31 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Senator Ford was Senate Assistant Majority Leader and Chair 

of the Committee on Rules and Administration.

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Floor Deliberations and Scheduling, Hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st 

sess., May 18, 20, and 25, 1993, S.Hrg. 103–119 (Washington, DC: 

GPO, 1993).

Includes testimony and submitted materials on Senate procedure, the fi libuster, and cloture from Alan Frumin, Senate Parliamentarian; Lloyd Cutler, Counsel to President Carter; Murray 

Zweben, former Parliamentarian of the Senate; Barbara Sinclair, 

Professor, University of California at Riverside; Steven Smith, 

Professor, University of Minnesota; and Senators James Exon, 

David Pryor, and Tom Harkin.

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Open Days for Members and Outside Groups, Hearings, 103rd 

Cong., 1st sess., June 16 and 29, 1993, S.Hrg. 103–128 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Includes testimony and submitted materials from Senators Byron Dorgan, Larry E. Craig, Dan Coats, and Sam Nunn.

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Testimony of Hon. Walter F. Mondale, Hearings, 103rd Cong., 1st 

sess., July 1, 1993, S.Hrg. 103–158 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Mondale had previously served as Senator and as Vice President.

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Background Materials: Supplemental Information Provided to 

Members of the Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Committee Print, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., S.Prt. 103–55. (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Includes “Background and Issues on Reform of Senate Procedure and Scheduling,” pp. 1024–1032; “Senate Use of the Cloture 

Rule,” pp. 1052–1070; “The Senate Motion to Proceed to Consider,” 

pp. 1071–1086; columns from the Washington Post by Lloyd Cutler 

and others on whether the Senate requirement for super-majority 

cloture on rules changes is constitutional, pp. 1105–1109; and “Options for Changing Senate Floor Procedures,” pp. 1148–1157.

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Organization of the Congress, Final Report of the Senate Members 
174

of the Joint Committee, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., December, 1993, 

S.Rpt. 103–215, vol. I (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Includes recommendations and draft legislation on “Senate 

Floor Procedure.”

U.S. Congress, Joint Committee on the Organization of Congress, 

Organization of the Congress, Final Report of the Joint Committee, 103rd Cong., 1st sess., December, 1993, S.Rpt. 103–215, Vol. 

II (Washington, DC: GPO, 1993).

Includes “policy analysis and historical background” on “Senate Floor Procedures,” including “Summary of Hearings on Senate 

Floor Procedures,” pp. 45–58.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994, Hearings on S. 1824, 103rd 

Cong., 2nd sess., February 24, March 10, March 17, April 28, May 

5, 1994, S.Hrg. 103–488 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1994).

The Legislative Reorganization Act of 1994 refl ected the recommendations of the 1993 Joint Committee on the Organization of 

Congress, including its proposals on Senate fl oor procedure.

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on the Judiciary, Judicial Nominations, Filibusters, and the Constitution: When a Majority is Denied its Right to Consent, Hearings, 108th Cong., 1st sess., S.Hrg. 

108–227 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2003).

U.S. Congress, Senate, Committee on Rules and Administration, 

Examining the Filibuster, Hearings, 111th Cong., 2nd sess., April 

22, May 19, June 23, July 28, September 22 and 29, 2010, S.Hrg. 

111–706 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2010).

Information about cloture and fi libusters appears (as of September 

2011) on the following webpages on the public website of the U.S. 

Senate.

U.S. Senate, Cloture, at http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_

index_subjects/Cloture_vrd.htm.

Includes a table of “Senate Action on Cloture Motions, 1919–

present.”

U.S. Senate, Filibuster, at http://www.senate.gov/reference/reference_

index_subjects/Filibuster_vrd.htm.

U.S. Senate, Filibuster and Cloture, at http://www.senate.gov/

artandhistory/history/common/briefi ng/Filibuster_Cloture.htm.

CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE REPORTS

Beth, Richard S. “Entrenchment” of Senate Procedure and the “Nuclear Option” for Change: Possible Proceedings and Their Implications. Congressional Research Service, March 28, 2005, CRS Report RL32843.

Beth, Richard S., Mary Etta Cook, Ilona Nickels, Stanley Bach, Paul 

Rundquist, and Judy Schneider. Recommendations for Senate Reform: A Comparison of Selected Proposals. Congressional Research 

Service, 1985, CRS Memorandum CD8565.

Discusses recommendations of Study Group on Senate Practices 

and Procedures (“Pearson-Ribicoff Commission”) of 1982–1983, 

Temporary Select Committee to Study the Senate Committee System (“Quayle Committee”) of 1984, S. Res. 461 of 1984 by Senator 

Ted Stevens, and S. Res. 28 and related resolutions of 1985 by 

Senator Robert C. Byrd.
175

Beth, Richard S., Valerie Heitshusen, and Betsy Palmer. Filibusters 

and Cloture in the Senate. Congressional Research Service, March 

12, 2010, CRS Report RL30360.

Beth, Richard S. and Betsy Palmer. Cloture Attempts on Nominations. Congressional Research Service, January 31, 2011, CRS Report RL32878.

Davis, Christopher M. Standing Order and Rulemaking Statute: 

Possible Alternatives to the “Nuclear Option”? Congressional Research Service, April 20, 2005, CRS Report RL32874.

Davis, Christopher M., Valerie Heitshusen, and Betsy Palmer. Proposals to Change the Operation of Cloture in the Senate. Congressional Research Service, July 27, 2010, CRS Report R41342.

Heitshusen, Valerie. Constitutional Points of Order in the Senate. 

Congressional Research Service, January 6, 2010, CRS Report 

R40948.

Heitshusen, Valerie. The Legislative Process on the Senate Floor: An 

Introduction. Congressional Research Service, December 1, 2010, 

CRS Report 96–548.

Lynch, Megan Suzanne. Unanimous Consent Agreements Establishing a 60-Vote Threshold for Passage of Legislation in the Senate.

Congressional Research Service, May 12, 2009, CRS Report 34491.

Oleszek, Walter J. Cloture: Its Effect on Senate Proceedings. Congressional Research Service, May 19, 2008, CRS Report 98–780.

Oleszek, Walter J. Proposals to Reform “Holds” in the Senate. Congressional Research Service, July 15, 2010, CRS Report RL31685.

Oleszek, Walter J. The “Memorandum of Understanding”: A Senate 

Compromise on Judicial Filibusters. Congressional Research Service, July 26, 2005, CRS Report RS22208.

Oleszek, Walter J. Senate Policy on “Holds”: Action in the 110th Congress. Congressional Research Service, March 14, 2008, CRS Report RL34255.

Palmer, Betsy, Changing Senate Rules or Procedures: The “Constitutional” or “Nuclear” Option. Congressional Research Service, November 1, 2005, CRS Report RL32684.

Palmer, Betsy. Evolution of the Senate’s Role in the Nomination and 

Confi rmation Process: A Brief History. Congressional Research 

Service, May 13, 2009, CRS Report RL31948.

Rybicki, Elizabeth. Senate Consideration of Presidential Nominations: Committee and Floor Procedure. Congressional Research 

Service, April 28, 2011, CRS Report RL31980.

Schneider, Judy. Minority Rights and Senate Procedures. Congressional Research Service, August 22, 2005, CRS Report RL30850.

Tatelman, Todd B. Constitutionality of a Senate Filibuster of a Judicial Nomination. Congressional Research Service, June 14, 2005, 

CRS Report RL32102.

MATERIALS FROM CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY AND CONGRESSIONAL DIGEST

(IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER)

“Should Debate in the Senate be Further Limited? A Discussion of 

the Dawes Proposal for Senate Cloture.” Congressional Digest, vol. 

5 (November 1926), pp. 291–317, 320.

Includes “The United States Senate: Its Place in American Government,” by Senator Henry Cabot Lodge [Sr.]; “Legislative His176

tory of Cloture Rules in the Senate” and “Outstanding Senate Filibusters from 1841 to 1923” (apparently the original appearance 

of these chronologies, identifi ed as “specially prepared for this 

number of The Congressional Digest,” but later updated for various editions of the current document); and pro and con discussion 

by Vice President Charles G. Dawes; Senators William E. Borah, 

Royal S. Copeland, Kenneth D. McKellar, Furnifold M. Simmons, 

Oscar W. Underwood, George W. Norris, Smith W. Brookhart, 

Earle B. Mayfi eld, Arthur Capper, and Irvine L. Lenroot; Representative James A. Frear; former Senators John T. Morgan, John 

G. Carlisle, Robert L. Owen, Charles S. Thomas, and William J. 

Stone; former Representative Frank W. Mondell; former subcabinet offi cer Norman H. Davis; and Professor Lindsay Rogers.

“Should Senate Limit Debate?” Congressional Quarterly Log for Editors, vol. 7 (January 21, 1949), pp. 67–68.

“A discussion of cloture, how it works, and proposals to change 

it.”

“Groups Seeking Cloture Rule by Majority Senate Vote.” Congressional Quarterly Log for Editors, vol. 7 (March 4, 1949), pp. 269–270.

“Filibuster.” Congressional Quarterly Log for Editors, vol. 7 (March 

18, 1949), pp. 341, 345, 347.

Account of Senate adoption of new cloture rule expanding application of cloture but requiring a two-thirds vote of all Senators to 

invoke as opposed to two-thirds present and voting under previous 

cloture rule.

“Limitation of Debate: S. Res. 15.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 5, 1949 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly News 

Features, 1949), pp. 583–588.

A review of the 1949 rules change on invoking cloture.

“Filibuster Fight? New Round in Old Battle.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 11 (January 1, 1953), pp. 11–12.

Includes discussion of the 1949 change and arguments for and 

against unlimited debate.

“Senate Rules Change Attempt Fails; 70–21 Roll Call Blocks Maneuver Aimed at Curbing Filibusters.” Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Report, vol. 11 (January 9, 1953), pp. 43–44.

Debate focuses on whether the Senate is a continuing body or 

not.

“Question of Cloture in the United States Senate: Should Debates be 

Closed by Majority Vote?” Congressional Digest, vol. 32 (February 

1953), pp. 41–64.

Details the existing cloture rule, describes efforts to change the 

rule and includes excerpts from fl oor debate by Senators Paul H. 

Douglas, Robert A. Taft, and Clinton Anderson. Also includes testimony to the Committee by Senator Richard B. Russell and earlier remarks by Vice President Charles G. Dawes and Senators 

Royal S. Copeland, Oscar W. Underwood, and George W. Norris.

“Senate, House Vote on Rules.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 

1953 9th ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1954), 

pp. 313–314.

Review of an abortive effort to change Rule XXII.

“Senate Rules Challenged.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 

vol. 15 (January 4, 1957) p. 29.
177

A coalition of Democrats and Republicans attempt to change 

rule XXII.

“Senate Keeps Old Rules by Tabling Motion to Change Them.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 15 (January 11, 1957), pp. 

38–40.

Of major signifi cance was Vice-President Nixon’s opinion [reprinted here] that a majority of Senators can change the rules 

at the beginning of a new Congress. The Senate, he noted, is the 

fi nal judge in this matter.

“Question of Limiting U.S. Senate Debate.” Congressional Digest, vol. 36 (February 1957), pp. 39–64.

Includes “Historical Sketch of the U.S. Senate” (by Senator 

Henry Cabot Lodge, Sr.); “Past Efforts to Limit Senate Debate,” 

excerpts from fl oor debate on the cloture rule by Senators Richard 

Russell, Clinton Anderson, Paul Douglas, John L. McClellan, J.W. 

Fulbright, Hubert H. Humphrey, John C. Stennis, and Prescott 

Bush, and excerpts from the 1952 report of the Senate Rules and 

Administration Committee on a proposal to amend the cloture 

rule.

“Fact Sheet on Filibusters; History, Techniques of Senate Filibusters.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1957, 13th ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1957), pp. 570–572.

A discussion of fi libustering with examples of famous fi libusters. 

Originally in Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 15 (April 

19, 1957), pp. 489–491.

“Senate Rules.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1957, 13th ed.,

(Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1957), pp. 655–656.

Review of attempt to alter cloture rule.

“Filibuster Study.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 16 

(January 24, 1958), p. 122.

Report by special subcommittee of the Rules and Administration 

Committee urged that the cloture rule be modifi ed.

“Senate Cloture Rule.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 

16 (March 28, 1958), p. 377.

Senate Rules and Administration Committee reported S. Res. 

17, to amend Rule XXII to provide for easier invocation of cloture.

“Moves to Change U.S. Senate Cloture Rule.” Congressional Digest, 

vol. 37 (December 1958), pp. 295–314.

Includes “Evolution of Present Cloture Rule 22;” “Unsuccessful 

Moves to Change, 1918–1956;” “The Attempt to Change in 85th 

Congress;” excerpts by Senators Jacob K. Javits and Herman 

E. Talmadge from a 1958 report to the Committee on Rules and 

Administration on the rules change proposal; and excerpts from 

testimony to the Committee by Walter P. Reuther, President of 

the United Automobile Workers, and Omar B. Ketchum, Director, 

National Legislative Service, Veterans of Foreign Wars of the U.S.

“Fact Sheet: Will the Senate Change Rule 22?” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 17 (January 2, 1959), pp. 13–20.

Analyzes the probability of changes in Rule XXII. Includes historical information, arguments for and against Rule XXII, previous votes on rules changes by Senators, and Vice-President Nixon’s earlier advisory opinion on the right of a new Senate to alter 

rules by majority vote.
178

“Senate Rules Change.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 

17 (January 16, 1959), pp. 69–71.

An analysis of the Senate’s adoption of the cloture rule which 

prevailed prior to the 1949 modifi cation.

“Senate Rules Change.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1959, 

15th ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1959), pp. 

212–214.

“History, Techniques of Senate Filibusters.” Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Report, vol. 18 (March 4, 1960), pp. 337–339.

“Senate Rules.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 19 (January 6, 1961), pp. 3–4.

Report on attempt to alter the cloture rule.

“Senate Sidetracks Anti-Filibuster Dispute, 50–46.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 19 (January 13, 1961), pp. 31.

Resolutions to change rule XXII referred to Rules and Administration Committee, ending another modifi cation attempt.

“Senate Rules Unchanged.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1961, 

17th ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1961), pp. 

408–9).

“Analysis of Senate’s Last Five Cloture Votes.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 20 (August 17, 1962), pp. 1358–1359.

Cloture votes on 1960 civil rights bills, 1961 attempts to change 

Rule XXII, 1962 literacy test bill, and the 1962 communications 

satellite bill. Also in Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1962, 18th 

ed., pp. 378.

“Senate Filibuster Rule.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 21 (January 4, 1963), pp. 11–12.

Report on attempt to modify Rule XXII.

“Discussion of Proposed Rule 22 Revision.” Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Report, vol. 21 (January 11, 1963), pp. 33–34.

“Liberals lose key test in Senate rules fi ght.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 21 (February 1, 1963), p. 109.

Attempt to claim constitutional prerogative to end debate on 

rules changes at beginning of new Congress by majority vote is 

defeated.

“Senate Lays Aside Rules Changes After Cloture Fails.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 21 (February 8, 1963), pp. 139.

“Senate Rules Aftermath.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 21 (February 15, 1963), p. 192.

Vice President Johnson criticized for failure to rule on contention that Constitution permits ending of debate on rules changes 

by majority vote at beginning of new Congress.

“Senate Cloture Rule.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1963, 19th ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1963), pp. 

373–376.

“Procedures Crucial in Expected Civil Rights Filibuster.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 22 (February 21, 1964), pp. 

355–356.

“Dirksen Infl uence the Key to Successful Cloture Vote.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 22 (May 15, 1964), pp. 947–950.

“Cloture on Civil Rights Breaks 26-Year Precedent.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 22 (June 12, 1964), pp. 1169–1172, 

1195.
179

“Senate Rules Changes.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 

vol. 23 (January 8, 1965), p. 32.

A new Congress brings about another attempt to change Rule 

XXII.

“Senate Sends Proposed Rules Changes to Committee.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 23 (January 15, 1965), pp. 69–70.

Proposals to ease requirements for invoking cloture are sent to 

the Rules and Administration Committee with directive to report 

on them by March 9.

“Cloture Reform.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 23 

(March 12, 1965), p. 416.

Rules and Administration Committee reports resolutions to 

modify cloture rule.

“Senate Cloture Rule.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1965, 21st 

ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Service, 1966), pp. 

590–592.

“Cloture Rule: A Preview of the Issue as the 90th Congress Prepares 

to Convene.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 25 (January 6, 1967), pp. 22–23.

“Cloture Rule.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 25 (January 13, 1967), p. 41.

“Cloture Motion Filed as Rule 22 Debate Continues.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 25 (January 20, 1967), pp. 87–88.

Includes description of parliamentary maneuvers by supporters 

of change to circumvent cloture rule applications to rules changes.

“Senate Defeats Cloture on Rule 22 Debate.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 25 (January 27, 1967), p. 119.

“Congressional Reorganization Bill Sent to House.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 25 (March 17, 1967), pp. 375–376.

Includes reporting on Senator Clark’s defeated attempts to limit 

debate through amendments to S. 355.

“Humphrey Ruling Fails to Ease Senate Filibuster Rule.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 26 (January 17, 1969), pp. 

138–141.

Discusses the Vice President’s ruling, on constitutional grounds, 

in favor of majority cloture on rules changes at start of a Congress, which the Senate reversed.

“Senate, House Debates on Rules to Speed Action.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 29 (February 12, 1971), pp. 257–258.

“Failure on Fourth Cloture Vote.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly 

Report, vol. 29 (March 12, 1971), p. 549.

Fourth attempt that year to modify the fi libuster rule.

“Senate Again Rejects Change in Filibuster Rule.” Congressional 

Quarterly Almanac, 1971, 27th ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 1972), pp. 13–16.

“Congressional Reforms Made in 1975.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1975, 31st ed., (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly, 

1976), pp. 35–38.

Smith, Donald and Thomas P. Southwick. “Senate Likely to Outstrip 

House in Reforms.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 34 

(November 27, 1976), pp. 3234–3240.

Southwick, Thomas P. “Senate Filibusters Cloture Rule Change.” 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 35 (May 14, 1977), 

pp. 893–894.
180

Donnelly, Harrison. “Return to Filibusters of Yesteryear—With a 

Difference.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 35 (October 1, 1977), p. 2065.

Berlow, Alan. “Filibuster Fallout: Byrd’s Role and Precedents.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 35 (October 8, 1977), pp. 

2127–2128.

Describes leadership actions to overcome fi libuster on natural 

gas bill.

“Election Reforms: Delay and Defeat; Senate Filibuster Rule.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 1977, 33rd ed., (Washington, DC: 

Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1977), pp. 798–814.

Cooper, Ann. “The Senate and the Filibuster: War of Nerves—and 

Hardball.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 36 (September 2, 1978), pp. 2307–2310.

Discusses the increasing use of the fi libuster by the Senate as a 

means of fi ghting legislation.

Cooper, Ann. “New Filibuster Fight Expected in Senate.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 37 (January 13, 1979), pp. 

63–64.

Cooper, Ann. “Congress’ First Days Quiet, Fights to Come.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 37 (January 20, 1979), pp. 

75–77.

Senate begins debate on Majority Leader Byrd’s proposed fi libuster changes.

“Filibuster Changes.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 37 

(February 3, 1979), p. 184.

“Both Sides Maneuvering: Senate Finally Begins Debate on Key 

Proposal to Restrict Filibusters After Cloture.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 37 (February 10, 1979), p. 257.

Cooper, Ann. “Senate Limits Post-Cloture Filibusters.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 37 (February 24, 1979), pp. 319–320.

“Filibuster Rules Change.” Congressional Quarterly Almanac, vol. 

35, 1979 (Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1980, 

pp. 593–595).

Donnelly, Harrison. “ ‘Urgent’ Funds Still Delayed: Mortgage Aid, 

Tax Break Top List of Differences for Spending Bill Conferees.” 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 40 (June 5, 1982), pp. 

1377, 1379.

For the fi rst time since the adoption of the cloture rule, the 

Senate voted to suspend the rule prohibiting nongermane amendments after invoking cloture.

Ehrenhalt, Alan. “Every Man is an Island: In the Senate of the ’80s, 

Team Spirit has Given Way to the Rule of Individuals.” Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 40 (September 4, 1982), pp. 

2175–2182.

Discussion of increased use of fi libusters.

Plattner, Andy. “Cut Committees, Debate: Report Urges Major 

Changes in Senate Structure, Rules.” Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Report, vol. 41 (April 9, 1983), pp. 695–696.

“Changes in Senate Rules Recommended.” Congressional Quarterly 

Almanac, 1984, 39th ed., 1983 (Washington, DC: Congressional 

Quarterly, 1984), pp. 598–599.
181

Cohodas, Nadine. “Drops Proposal for Filibuster Rule Change: Panel 

Proposes Senate Committee Changes.” Congressional Quarterly 

Weekly Report, vol. 42 (December 1, 1984), p. 3035.

Calmes, Jacqueline. “ ‘Trivialized’ Filibuster is Still a Potent Tool.” 

Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, vol. 45 (September 5, 

1987), pp. 2115–2120.

Donovan, Beth. “Mitchell Tilts at Rules Windmill.” Congressional 

Quarterly Weekly, vol. 51 (January 30, 1993), p. 205.

Stevens, Allison and Keith Perine. “Bid to Curb Nominee Filibusters Test Limits of GOP Risk-Taking.” CQ Weekly, vol. 61 (May 17, 

2003), pp. 1185–86.

Perine, Keith and Allison Stevens. “A Non-Precedent Precedent on 

Filibusters.” CQ Weekly, vol. 61 (May 10, 2003), pp. 1084–85.

Cochran, John. “Senators Uneasy with Proposal to Alter Filibuster Rule on Judicial Nominations.” CQ Weekly, vol. 61 (June 28, 

2003), pp. 1605–1606.

Hawkings, David, Allison Stevens and John Cranford. “A GOP-Redefi ned Filibuster Raises Questions, Stirs Debate.” CQ Weekly, vol. 

61 (November 15, 2003), pp. 2810–2811.

Perine, Keith. “Parliamentary Toolbox Full of Options to Renovate 

Filibuster Rules.” CQ Weekly, vol. 63 (January 10, 2005), pp. 60–

61.

“Judicial Nominations: The Debate Over the ‘Nuclear Option’.” Congressional Digest, vol. 84 (May 2005), pp. 131–160.

Includes “Filibusters and Cloture: Rules Governing Extended 

Debate;” “Filibusters of Judicial Nominations: Analysis of Constitutional Issues;” excerpts from fl oor debate by Majority Leader 

Bill Frist, and Senators Orrin Hatch, Robert C. Byrd., Jr., Pete V. 

Domenici, Richard Durbin, and Mitch McConnell, and from statements by Senators Harry Reid and Edward M. Kennedy.

Merry, Robert W. “Essay: Senate and Sensibility.” CQ Weekly, vol. 63 

(May 9, 2005), pp. 1188–1192.

Schatz, Joseph J. “Byrd Says Filibusters Should Return to Tradition 

of Floor Marathons.” CQToday, vol. 46 (February 24, 2010), p. 28.

“The Evolution of the Filibuster and Cloture Rule.” CQ Weekly, vol. 

68 (April 19, 2010), pp. 954–955.

“Use of Filibuster Skyrocketed.” CQ Researcher, vol. 20 (April 30, 

2010), pp. 389–394.

“At Issue: Should Senate Rules Make it Easier for the Majority Party to End Filibusters?” CQ Researcher, vol. 20 (April 30, 2010), p. 

401.

“Filibuster Reform: Reconsidering the Senate Rules of Debate.” Congressional Digest, vol. 90 (February 2011), pp. 33–64.

Includes “Senate Filibusters and the Cloture Rule” (from CRS 

report RL30360, “Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate”); descriptions of “Historic Senate Filibusters;” “Legislative Background on 

Filibuster Reform;” and excerpts from fl oor debate by Senators 

Tom Harkin, Lamar Alexander, John Cornyn, Mark Udall, Christopher J. Dodd, and Jeff Merkley.

PART 2

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF PARAGRAPH 2 OF RULE XXII OF 

THE STANDING RULES OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE 

(CLOTURE RULE)

(185)

THE CLOTURE RULE (THE “MARTIN RESOLUTION”)

The cloture rule was adopted during a period of national emergency, shortly before war on Germany was declared. In 1915 a shipping bill had been defeated in the Senate as the result of a fi libuster, 

and on March 4, 1917, the 64th Congress adjourned having failed 

to pass a bill authorizing the arming of merchant vessels. Referring 

to the defeat of this latter bill, President Wilson made the following 

statement:

It would not cure the diffi culty to call the 65th Congress in extraordinary session. The paralysis of the Senate would remain. 

The purpose and the spirit of action are not lacking now. The 

Congress is more defi nitely united in thought and purpose at 

this moment, I venture to say, than it has been within the memory of any man now in its membership. There is not only the 

most united patriotic purpose, but the objects Members have in 

view are perfectly clear and defi nite. But the Senate cannot act 

unless its leaders can obtain unanimous consent. Its majority 

is powerless, helpless. In the midst of a crisis of extraordinary 

peril, when only defi nite and decided action can make the Nation safe or shield it from war itself by the aggression of others, 

action is impossible. Although as a matter of fact, the Nation 

and the representatives of the Nation stand back of the Executive with unprecedented unanimity and spirit, the impression 

made abroad will, of course, be that it is not so, and that other 

governments may act as they please without fear that this Government can do anything at all. We cannot explain. The explanation is incredible. The Senate of the United States is the only 

legislative body in the world which cannot act when its majority 

is ready for action. A little group of willful men, representing no 

opinion but their own, have rendered the great Government of 

the United States helpless and contemptible. The remedy? There 

is but one remedy. The only remedy is that the rules of the Senate shall be so altered that it can act. The country can be relied 

upon to draw the moral. I believe that the Senate can be relied 

on to supply the means of action and save the country from disaster. (55 Congressional Record 20).

Soon after the Senate met in special session on March 5, 1917, 

and the question of amending the Rules of the Senate so that debate could be closed was considered at conferences of the majority 

and the minority. A joint committee of fi ve Senators from each conference was selected to prepare the necessary resolution which was 

presented to the Senate on March 8, 1917, by the majority leader, 

Senator Martin, who obtained unanimous consent for its immediate 

consideration. The Martin resolution (S. Res. 5) 1 read as follows:

1 A comparison of the Martin resolution with S. Res. 195, as reported to the Senate on May 

16, 1916, from the Committee on Rules by Senator Smith of Georgia, shows that only clarifying 

changes were made in the text of the earlier resolution which had not been acted upon at the 

close of the 64th Cong. (53 Congressional Record 8023). An interesting discussion of some of the 

resolutions offered in the Senate from 1915 to March 1917 providing for some form of cloture 

appears in 95 Congressional Record 1587, 1588.
186

Resolved, That the Senate shall, from and after its adoption, 

enforce the following rule, which is hereby adopted:

If at any time a motion, signed by 16 Senators, to bring to 

a close the debate upon any pending measure is presented to 

the Senate, the Presiding Offi cer shall at once state the motion 

to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the 

Senate and direct that the Secretary call the roll, and upon the 

ascertainment that a quorum is present the Presiding Offi cer 

shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by an aye-and-nay 

vote the question:

“Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought 

to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affi rmative by a 

two-thirds vote of those voting, then said measure shall be the 

unfi nished business to the exclusion of all other business until 

disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more 

than one hour on the pending measure, the amendments thereto, 

and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty of the 

Presiding Offi cer to keep the time of each Senator who speaks. 

Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be in order 

after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless the same has 

been presented and read prior to that time. No dilatory motion, 

or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in 

order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Offi cer, shall be decided 

without debate.

Following some debate on the Martin resolution a roll call on fi nal 

passage showed that 76 Senators voted for its adoption, three were 

against, and announcements were made that 12 other Senators who 

were absent would have voted for its adoption if present (55 Congressional Record 45). Senators Gronna, La Follette, and Sherman 

voted against the resolution. During the debate Senator La Follette 

expressed his opposition to the measure stating: “. . . I shall stand 

while I am a Member of this body against any cloture that denies 

free and unlimited debate” (55 Congressional Record 41). Senator 

Gronna was “surprised to fi nd men who have advocated progressive 

measures rising today on the fl oor seeking to take away from the 

minority the possibility of being heard” (55 Congressional Record

40). Senator Sherman felt that the President had been unfair to the 

Senate in attributing the defeat of the bill authorizing the arming of 

merchant vessels to the Rules of the Senate when in fact “his own 

deferred action caused it” (55 Congressional Record 23).

During the consideration of the Martin resolution, Senator Hollis 

proposed an amendment which would have permitted a simple majority to cut off debate. But upon request of the majority leader, the 

amendment was withdrawn (55 Congressional Record 27). Senator 

Norris’ statement in support of the resolution would seem to refl ect 

the attitude of most of the Senators voting in the affi rmative. After 

observing that he could not have supported the Hollis amendment 

he stated:

I have always opposed any change of the rule that would 

give any majority, no matter how large, the right absolutely to 

close debate and permit no one to be heard further because under that kind of a rule Members of the Senate could absolutely 
187

be precluded even from expressing an opinion on any pending 

measure. But this rule, Mr. President, goes only to a reasonable 

extent. It requires, in the fi rst place, a two-thirds vote to invoke 

the rule, and after it is invoked every Senator has a right to 

speak one hour on the bill and the amendments, which, I take 

it from the language of the proposed rule, will mean that he can 

divide that hour as he sees fi t—use it all on the bill, all on one 

amendment, or divide it up according to his own idea and his 

own judgment. To my mind, that is a reasonable proposition (55

Congressional Record 27).

(189)

THE 1949 AMENDMENT

On February 17, 1949, Senator Hayden, on behalf of the Committee on Rules and Administration, reported S. Res. 15. The resolution 

read as follows:

Resolved, That paragraph 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, relating to cloture, be, and the same is hereby, 

amended to read as follows: If at any time, notwithstanding the 

provisions of rule III or rule VI or any other rule of the Senate, 

a motion, signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, or other matter pending before 

the Senate, or the unfi nished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Offi cer shall at once state the motion to the 

Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets on the following 

calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate 

and direct that the Secretary call the roll, and, upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Offi cer shall, 

without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the 

question: Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be 

brought to a close?

And if that question shall be decided in the affi rmative by a 

two-thirds vote of those voting, then said measure, motion, or 

other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, shall be the unfi nished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more 

than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending 

before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, the amendments 

thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty 

of the Presiding Offi cer to keep the time of each Senator who 

speaks.

Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be in order after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless the same 

has been presented and read prior to that time. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall 

be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and 

appeals from the decision of the Presiding Offi cer, shall be decided without debate.

Senate Report 69, accompanying S. Res. 15, explained the reasons 

for and the purpose of the resolution.

The resolution is identical with Senate Resolution 25 of the 

80th Congress, favorably reported to the Senate on April 3, 1947, 

to make rule XXII, as adopted on March 8, 1917, applicable to 

any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business. This change is primarily necessary in order to overcome the possibility of unlimited debate 

upon a motion that the Senate proceed to the consideration of a 

bill or other measure which has not been made the unfi nished 

business of the Senate.

The resolution further provides that a motion signed by 16 

Senators to bring debate to a close may be presented at any time 
190

notwithstanding the provisions of rule III or rule VI or any other 

rule of the Senate. Rule III of the Standing Rules of the Senate 

provides that a motion to amend or correct the Journal shall be 

deemed a privileged question and proceeded with until disposed 

of, and rule VI provides that all questions and motions arising 

or made upon the presentation of credentials shall be proceeded 

with until disposed of.

The necessity for this change in rule XXII was fi rst demonstrated in November 1922, when a number of motions to amend 

the Journal were debated for several days, thereby preventing 

the consideration of an anti-lynching bill which was fi nally laid 

aside.

Extended discussion of amendments to the Journal was the 

method usually used during the following 20 years to prevent 

the consideration of bills about which there were decided differences of opinion. In more recent years, however, the practice 

has been for several Senators to discuss at length the question 

of whether a particular bill should become the unfi nished business of the Senate. A direct ruling that a petition to bring such 

discussion to an end may not be presented was made by the 

President pro tempore (Mr. Vandenberg) on August 2, 1948. The 

intent of Senate Resolution 15 is to close those two loopholes in 

rule XXII and to make that rule applicable in all instances.

The fact that over 5 years elapsed before the fi rst fl aw in the 

cloture provisions of rule XXII was developed and that a much 

longer time expired before a second serious fl aw was discovered 

is a defi nite indication that every Senator who voted to amend 

rule XXII in 1917 did so with a clear understanding that he was 

voting for an enforceable rule to close debate and not to produce 

a result, as Mr. Vandenberg stated, ‘That, in the fi nal analysis, 

the Senate has no effective cloture rule at all.’ The ruling of the 

Chair was clearly required by the rules and precedents of the 

Senate, and that is the reason why this proposed change in the 

rules is indispensable.

On February 28, 1949, Majority Leader Lucas moved that the 

Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 15. Debate on the motion to take up this resolution occupied the attention of the Senate 

during the succeeding days. On March 10, 1949, Senator Lucas offered a cloture petition under Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate (the Martin resolution) to bring to a close the debate on the 

motion to take up S. Res. 15. A point of order was thereupon made 

by Senator Russell that Rule XXII applied only to “debate upon a 

pending measure” and not to debate upon a motion to proceed to the 

consideration of a measure. In support of his point of order Senator 

Russell cited a number of precedents, including the ruling of Senator 

Vandenberg which, as has been noted, was referred to in the committee report accompanying S. Res. 15. After reviewing at some length 

the purposes sought to be accomplished by the Senate in adopting 

the cloture rule in 1917, and after distinguishing the precedents 

cited by Senator Russell from the pending issue, the Vice President 

overruled the point of order (95 Congressional Record 2172–2175). 

Senator Russell thereupon appealed the decision of the Chair. After 

some debate, a motion by Senator Lucas to lay on the table Senator 

Russell’s appeal was rejected, 41–46 (95 Congressional Record 2275).

Following the refusal of the Senate to sustain the ruling of the 

Vice President, debate resumed on the motion to take up S. Res. 15. 

There were, however, indications that efforts were being made off 
191

the fl oor of the Senate to draft a compromise measure (95 Congressional Record 2354). On March 15, 1949, Senator Wherry, for himself and 51 other Senators, offered an amendment (in the nature of 

a substitute) to S. Res. 15. The text of the substitute read as follows:

Resolved, That paragraph 2 of the rule XXII of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate relating to cloture, be, and the same is hereby, amended to read as follows:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule III or rule VI or any 

other rule of the Senate, except paragraph 3 of rule XXII, at 

any time a motion signed by 16 Senators, to bring to a close the 

debate upon any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, is presented to the 

Senate, the Presiding Offi cer shall at once state the motion to 

the Senate, and 1 hour after the Senate meets on the following 

calendar day, but one, he shall lay the motion before the Senate 

and direct that the Secretary call the roll, and, upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Offi cer shall, 

without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-and-nay vote 

question: “Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be 

brought to a close?” And if that question shall be decided in the 

affi rmative by two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, 

then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the 

Senate, or the unfi nished business, shall be the unfi nished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more 

than 1 hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending 

before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, the amendments 

thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty 

of the Presiding Offi cer to keep the time of each Senator who 

speaks.

Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be in order after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless the same 

has been presented and read prior to that time. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall 

be in order.

Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals 

from the decision of the Presiding Offi cer, shall be decided without debate.

SEC. 2. Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate, relating 

to cloture, be, and the same is hereby, amended by adding at the 

end thereof the following new paragraph:

3. The provisions of the last paragraph of rule VIII (prohibiting debate on motions made before 2 o’clock) and of paragraph 2 

of this rule shall not apply to any motion to proceed to the consideration of any motion, resolution, or proposal to change any 

of the Standing Rules of the Senate. (95 Congressional Record

2509).

The debate which ensued on the substitute proposal pointed up 

the two important differences between it and S. Res. 15 as reported. 

S. Res. 15, as reported, authorized cloture on an affi rmative vote of 

two-thirds of those voting; the substitute required two-thirds of the 

Senators duly chosen and sworn. Secondly, the resolution as reported applied to any measure, motion, or other matter pending before 

the Senate, or the unfi nished business. The substitute was applicable to the same, except that cloture would not apply to any motion 

to proceed to the consideration of any motion, resolution, or proposal 

to change any of the Standing Rules of the Senate.
192

Several amendments were offered to the substitute. Senator Donnell’s amendment to make explicit that “matter,” as used in the substitute resolution, included a motion to approve the Journal, was 

defeated, 14–72 (95 Congressional Record 2719). Senator Morse’s 

amendment to permit cloture by a simple majority and to remove 

any exception in the case of a motion to proceed to the consideration 

of a rule change was rejected, 7–80 (95 Congressional Record 2723). 

Senator Baldwin’s amendment to permit cloture by a two-thirds vote 

of those present, except a motion, resolution, or proposal to change 

the Rules which would require two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen, was defeated, 29–57 (95 Congressional Record 2720). And fi - nally, Senator Myers’ amendment, which would have had the same 

substantive effect as the Morse amendment, was rejected, 17–69 (95 

Congressional Record 2723).

All other amendments having been voted down, the substitute 

amendment was approved, 63–23, and S. Res. 15, as amended by 

the substitute, was agreed to on March 17, 1949 (95 Congressional 

Record 2724).
(193)

THE 1959 AMENDMENT

On January 8, 1959, S. Res. 5 was introduced by Majority Leader 

Johnson of Texas. It had some 40 cosponsors and was designed to 

amend Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate in two ways. 

It reduced the required number of Senators to effect cloture from 

“two-thirds of the Senators duly chosen and sworn” to “two-thirds of 

the Senators present and voting” and made the cloture rule, itself, 

applicable to a motion to consider a change in the Standing Rules 

of the Senate. A third change made by the resolution amended Rule 

XXXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate to provide that the Rules 

of the Senate continue from one Congress to the next Congress, unless changed in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate. 

The resolution provided:

Resolved, That subsection 2 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate is amended (1) by striking out “except subsection 3 

of rule XXII”, and (2) by striking out “two-thirds of the Senators 

duly chosen and sworn” and inserting in lieu “two-thirds of the 

Senators present and voting”.

SEC. 2. Subsection 3 of rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate is amended by striking out “and of subsection 2 of this 

rule”.

SEC. 3. Rule XXXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is 

amended by inserting “1.” immediately preceding “At”, and by 

adding at the end thereof a new paragraph as follows:

“2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress 

to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in 

these rules.” 1

The purpose of the change proposed by S. Res. 5 was set out in the 

notice of the motion to amend the Rules pursuant to the provisions 

of Rule XL of the Standing Rules as follows:

(1) To modify subsection 2 of rule XXII by reducing the number of votes required for the adoption of a cloture motion;

(2) To modify subsection 3 of said rule so as to permit a cloture 

motion to be presented on a motion to proceed to the consideration of any motion, resolution or proposal to change any of the 

standing rules of the Senate.

(3) To add a new paragraph to rule XXXII to provide that the 

rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next 

Congress unless they are changed as provided in the rules of the 

Senate (105 Congressional Record 10).

On January 9, 1959, S. Res. 5 was made the pending business of 

the Senate.

1 The same proposal was introduced in the 85th Cong. as S. Res. 30, and was considered by 

the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. That committee reported S. Res. 17; which 

would have amended Rule XXII to permit a majority of the full Senate to effect cloture (85th 

Cong., 2nd sess., S. Rept. 1509 (1958)).
194

One substitute and fi ve amendments were considered during the 

debate on the Johnson resolution. The amendment in the form of a 

substitute was sponsored by Senator Anderson and 32 other Senators.

The effect of the Anderson proposal was to adopt rules for the Senate de novo at the beginning of each session of the Congress pursuant to section 5 of Article I of the Constitution. The amendment as 

modifi ed provided:

Resolved, That, in accordance with article I, sec. 5 of the Constitution which declares that ‘each House may determine the 

Rules of its proceedings’ this body proceed now to the immediate 

consideration of the adoption of Rules for the Senate of the 86th 

Congress.

SEC. 2. The Standing Rules of the Senate of the 86th Congress 

shall be the same as the Standing Rules, other than rule XXII, 

of the Senate of the 85th Congress.

SEC. 3. Consideration of the form of rule XXII for the Senate 

of the 86th Congress shall be the next order of business of the 

Senate (105 Congressional Record 156).

The initial debate on both the Johnson resolution and Senator 

Anderson’s substitute was concerned with the advisory opinion of 

Vice President Nixon made on January 4, 1957 (103 Congressional 

Record 178), which stated in pertinent part:

It is the opinion of the Chair that while the rules of the Senate have been continued from one Congress to another, the right 

of a current majority of the Senate at the beginning of a new 

Congress to adopt it own rules, stemming as it does from the 

Constitution itself, cannot be restricted or limited by rules adopted by a majority of the Senate in a previous Congress.

Any provision of Senate rules adopted in a previous Congress 

which has the expressed or practical effect of denying Congress 

the right to adopt the rules under which it desires to proceed 

is, in the opinion of the Chair, unconstitutional. It is also the 

opinion of the Chair that section 3 of rule XXII in practice has 

such an effect.

Senator Anderson explained the reason for his substitute as follows:

Mr. President, my interest in the proposal to adopt rules at 

the beginning of the session is based upon enough experience to 

know that if we do not act on the rules now, we will never have 

the opportunity to act during this session . . . . I think it should 

be pointed out that the situation since has changed considerably, 

by reason of the ruling by the Vice President that the Senate 

continues to operate under rules of the previous Congress until 

they are changed.

The Vice President says that, in his opinion, the old rules are 

not applicable as to certain sections, which may be unconstitutional—I hope I am quoting him correctly—but that as to the 

remainder of the rules, in the absence of some affi rmative action, the Senate could properly be regarded as proceeding under 

them.

Therefore, I do not see how it can be said that if we take the 

proposed action there will be a great legislative hiatus, in which 

nothing can be done because we shall have no rules . . . . (105 

Congressional Record 112, 113).
195

The Anderson substitute was tabled, 60–36 (105 Congressional 

Record 207).

The major amendment submitted to S. Res. 5 was sponsored by 

Senator Douglas and 13 other Senators. It provided for cloture to 

be effected by “a majority of Senators duly chosen and sworn”—a 

constitutional majority. The amendment was rejected, 28–67 (105 

Congressional Record 439). An amendment sponsored by Senator 

Morton and three other Senators would have substituted three-fi fths 

of the Senators present and voting for the two-thirds provision contained in the Johnson proposal. It was rejected, 36–58 (105 Congressional Record 446).

Two amendments dealt with section 3 of the resolution. They were 

designed to avoid the application of the cloture rule to a motion to 

consider changing the standing rules—with the implication that the 

advisory opinion of the Vice President would be persuasive. Both 

amendments, one sponsored by Senator Javits and one sponsored 

by Senator Case of New Jersey, were rejected (105 Congressional 

Record 452, 453).

An amendment submitted by Senator Case, which would have 

provided a germaneness test, was modifi ed and as a resolution was 

referred to the Committee on Rules and Administration (105 Congressional Record 464).

In the debate on the Johnson resolution, there were four positions. 

There were Senators who, like Senator Russell, opposed the resolution because, they argued, it was a limitation upon free debate in 

the Senate:

I am saddened by the thought that the Senate of the United 

States should now be prepared to adopt what is known as the 

Johnson resolution, sponsored by the distinguished majority 

leader and coauthored by 40 other Senators. There is no need 

on earth to further curtail the right of free speech in the Senate.

We hear much talk about fi libusters, yet no one has pointed 

out to this body a single highly desirable advantageous bill that 

has been defeated by unlimited debate in the Senate.

We can read the statements of the great men of other years—

Senator Reed, Senator La Follette, Senator Norris, Vice President Adlai Stevenson, grandfather of the former Governor of Illinois and twice a Democratic standard bearer, and many others. 

These giants of the past believed that the widest latitude and 

freedom of debate in the Senate was the greatest bulwark of liberty in the United States (105 Congressional Record 465).

There were some Senators who, like Senator Douglas, opposed 

the resolution because in their opinion it did not make signifi cant 

changes in the 1949 rule:

It is perfectly clear from the record of past votes over the years 

in the Senate that no real change has been made by section 1 of 

the bill. It is clear that on measures of importance on which a fi libuster would be conducted, virtually the entire membership of 

the Senate would be present on the fl oor for the fi nal vote . . . .

Section 3 is a distinct step backward. It gives strong moral authority, and possibly constitutional authority, for continuing this 

restrictive provision at the beginning of the next Congress, and 

thus making it more diffi cult to modify the rules of the Senate.

Section 2 may be a slight step forward, but not a very great 

step, because in practice, on the rules change which most inter196

ests me, I think a two-thirds requirement will be as effective in 

preventing a vote from being taken as unanimous consent; and 

in addition the two-thirds requirement can seldom be met on issues of civil rights (105 Congressional Record 489).

There were some Senators who, like Senator Case, supported the 

resolution although they disapproved of one of its provisions:

I have considered carefully whether these very small gains 

would be outweighed by the provisions of section 3, which purports to limit the power of the Senate, at the beginning of each 

new Congress, to adopt new rules. I have concluded that, under 

the Constitution, section 3 would not, and could not, have that 

effect. To that extent, section 3 is a nullity.

It is highly distasteful to vote for a measure which contains 

an invalid provision—a provision which I would oppose to the 

end if it had any binding effect. Yet I have fi nally concluded that, 

for me, it is not a suffi cient reason to forego such improvement, 

however slight, as the resolution represents in the respects already mentioned (105 Congressional Record 491).

There was a large group of Senators who, like its chief sponsor, 

Majority Leader Johnson, supported the resolution as a constructive 

change. He explained:

The resolution does these things—for these reasons: First, it 

provides that cloture shall be possible on the vote of two-thirds 

of the Senators present and voting.

Our present rule provides that cloture can be voted only by 

two-thirds of the full Senate membership. This necessitates the 

actual presence in the Chamber of 66 Senators casting affi rmative votes. In a body of this size, infi rmities and disabilities for 

one or two Members or more are commonplace. The committee duties of the Senator frequently require some Senators to 

be absent. The nature of our Nation’s world position, also, has 

resulted in more and more Senators being asked to serve the 

country at important tasks abroad. Each absent Senator, in effect, cancels two votes of those present . . . .

Two-thirds is the division by which we provide for amending 

the Constitution, for ratifying treaties, and for expelling Members from the Senate. It is an established, traditional division 

and we are maintaining it by the resolution.

The second provision of this resolution is, perhaps, the most 

important—although some have chosen to disregard its presence.

Our present rule XXII specifi cally exempts from cloture any 

motion to proceed to consideration of a change in the rules. This 

is the only such gap in our rules. Cloture can apply to substantive issues. Cloture can apply to a vote on the rule themselves. 

No cloture, however, can be applied to this one motion.

Thus, in present form, this means that debate could conceivably run on with no power to limit it when, in effect, there was 

no real subject matter before the Senate. This invites obstruction which serves no real purpose. It is intolerable to a majority 

and unnecessary for a minority, where the minority has a case 

to present.

The change now proposed would close this remaining narrow 

gap and permit the majority to maintain a standard of responsibility on this as on more important motions.

Finally, the third provision of this resolution would write into 

the rules a simple statement affi rming what seems no longer to 
197

be at issue. Namely, that the rules of the Senate shall continue 

in force, at all times, except as amended by the Senate.

This preserves, indisputably the character of the Senate as 

the one continuing body in our policy-making process.

It precludes the involvement of the Senate in the obstruction 

that would occur—or could occur—if, at the beginning of each 

Congress, a minority might attempt to force protracted debate 

on the adoption of each Senate rule individually (105 Congressional Record 493).

On January 12, 1959, the resolution (S. Res. 5) was agreed to, 

72–22 (105 Congressional Record 495). As amended, paragraphs 2 

and 3 of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate provided:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule III or rule VI or any 

other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen 

Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi n- ished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Offi cer shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after 

the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall 

lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the Secretary 

call the roll, and, upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Offi cer shall, without debate, submit to the 

Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question: ‘Is it the sense of 

the Senate that the debate shall be brought to a close?’ And if 

that question shall be decided in the affi rmative by two-thirds 

of the Senators present and voting, then said measure, motion, 

or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished 

business, shall be the unfi nished business to the exclusion of all 

other business until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more 

than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending 

before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, the amendments 

thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty 

of the Presiding Offi cer to keep the time of each Senator who 

speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be 

in order after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless the 

same has been presented and read prior to that time. No dilatory motion, or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane 

shall be in order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Offi cer, shall 

be decided without debate.

3. The provisions of the last paragraph of rule VIII (prohibiting debate on motions made before 2 o’clock) shall not apply to 

any motion to proceed to the consideration of any motion, resolution, or proposal to change any of the Standing Rules of the 

Senate.

(199)

THE 1975 AMENDMENT

In the 94th Congress, the Senate initially convened on Tuesday, 

January 14, 1975. Advocates of making cloture easier to invoke, encouraged by an unusually large (Democratic) majority returned in 

the 1974 elections, were prepared to renew efforts to amend Rule 

XXII, based in part on the argument that, on constitutional grounds, 

the Senate at the start of a new Congress could not be considered as 

bound by its previous Rules, but was entitled to change its Rules by 

the vote of a simple majority of a quorum present.

Immediately after the Senate convened, Majority Leader Mansfi eld obtained unanimous consent that “the rights of all Senators on 

all proposals,” including proposals to amend the Rules, “be fully protected,” and Majority Whip Byrd obtained unanimous consent that 

the Senate adjourn at the conclusion of its business on that day. 

Senator Mondale then submitted S. Res. 4, to permit cloture to be 

invoked by three-fi fths of Senators present and voting, and obtained 

unanimous consent that the resolution be laid over until the next 

legislative day. He also offered a notice of intent to move to amend 

Senate Rules in the way proposed by his resolution.

This sequence of events was evidently intended to enable proponents of the resolution to bring it to the Senate fl oor in accordance 

with existing Senate Rules. As Senator Mondale pointed out, those 

Rules required at least one day’s notice in writing of a motion to 

amend the Standing Rules. The Rules also required that, if a submitted resolution is neither referred to committee nor considered 

immediately by unanimous consent, it must be “laid over” until 

the next legislative day, and then may be considered (other than 

by unanimous consent) only when “morning business” is closed at 

the end of the “morning hour” that is to occur at the beginning of a 

new “legislative day”—that is, when the Senate reconvenes after an 

adjournment, but not after a recess. The action of the majority whip 

ensured that the Senate would adjourn, so that a new legislative 

day would occur, while the action of the majority leader sought to 

protect the ability of proponents of change to argue that even though 

the fi rst legislative day had ended, the Senate was still at the “beginning” of the Congress, and therefore could change its Rules by a 

simple majority vote.

Senator Mondale went on to state that proponents of his resolution did not, by operating in accordance with existing Rules, “acquiesce to the applicability of certain . . . rules to the effort to amend 

rule XXII.” The majority leader then also obtained unanimous consent for a more explicit statement that “notwithstanding any delay 

in consideration of the resolution, all proceedings, rights and privileges concerning the efforts to change rule XXII . . . be reserved, 

so that proponents . . . not be prejudiced in any way in the actual 

commencement of the consideration of this resolution” (121 Congressional Record 11–12).
200

Thereafter, the Senate continued to adjourn at the end of most 

days’ sessions until after it had formally commenced consideration 

of a resolution to amend the Rules. Until January 17, however, the 

Senate daily dispensed by unanimous consent with the “morning 

hour,” so that no resolutions coming “over, under the rule” (such as 

S. Res. 4) could be called up. At the conclusion of proceedings on 

January 16, however, the majority whip obtained unanimous consent that after morning business on the following day (the fourth 

calendar day, and the fourth legislative day, of the session), the Senate would proceed to consider S. Res. 4, and would consider it until 

6 p.m. (121 Congressional Record 597–598).

On January 17, the chair laid S. Res. 4 before the Senate as coming over, under the rule. The ensuing debate included statements of 

the major arguments offered by both sides on the question of amending Senate Rules. On behalf of the proposed change, Senator Pearson argued:

The sponsors of this resolution propose . . . a reasonable accommodation of the right to debate and the right to decide. We 

believe these two, often confl icting rights, may be harmonized in 

such a way as to protect action rather than intransigence.

Besides the question of how much debate the Senate should permit, Senator Pearson articulated, as a preliminary question, whether: “a majority of the Members of the Senate of the 94th Congress 

[may] change the rules of the Senate, uninhibited by the past rules 

of the Senate?” Senator Pearson answered in the affi rmative, citing 

the language of of the Constitution: “Each House may determine the 

Rules of its Proceedings . . .” (Article I, section 5). That language, 

Senator Pearson said, permitted the Senate at the beginning of each 

Congress to change its Rules by only a majority vote, because where 

the framers of the Constitution intended that votes greater than a 

simple voting majority be required, they had always expressed that 

requirement (121 Congressional Record 757–758).

Senator Allen countered that, because each Senate carried over 

two-thirds of the membership of the previous Senate, the Rules adopted by prior Senates must apply to the present Senate. He noted 

that a rule adopted by the Senate on January 12, 1959 (paragraph 2 

of Senate Rule V) stated that: “The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed 

as provided in these rules.” He also cited the commentary of the 

Parliamentarian Emeritus of the Senate, Floyd M. Riddick, that: “A 

two-thirds vote is required to invoke cloture and this is true even at 

the beginning of a new Congress when the Senate is trying to amend 

its rules” (Senate Procedure (1974), S. Doc. 93–21, 222).

Senator Allen summarized his arguments by saying: “Why, then, 

should the rules of the Senate carry on from one session of Congress 

to another session? Because the Senate is a continuing body and because the Senate rules say that they do” (121 Congressional Record

773). Senator Mondale’s principal rebuttal was that:

. . . the question remains whether the return of two-thirds 

binds the hands of a new Senate. We would argue that it cannot and should not. For, despite the fact that two-thirds of the 

Senators return, a new majority may return (121 Congressional 

Record 762).
201

When the Senate concluded consideration of S. Res. 4 pursuant 

to an earlier consent agreement, the resolution was automatically 

placed on the Calendar of General Orders. Reaching this status 

meant that the resolution could now be called up through a motion 

to proceed to consider, rather than only in a “morning hour” through 

a call of measures coming “over, under the rule.”

On Tuesday, January 21, Senator Pearson offered such a motion to consider S. Res. 4. When the Senate adjourned at the end of 

that day, the motion to consider fell; Senator Pearson renewed it on 

Thursday, January 23, but with a similar result. Thereafter, with 

one exception, no further fl oor action related to S. Res. 4 occurred 

through Tuesday, February 18. On Monday, February 3, the Majority Whip obtained unanimous consent that “no action be taken prior 

to Thursday, February 20, 1975, with respect to . . . S. Res. 4” or 

any other motion or resolution “to amend rule XXII . . . relating to 

a limitation of debate, and that all rights of Senators be protected 

and reserved” (121 Congressional Record 2016).

On February 19, the Majority Whip obtained unanimous consent 

that a proponent of S. Res. 4 be recognized on the next day. On 

February 20, Senator Pearson was recognized pursuant to this order, and offered a compound motion (1) that the Senate proceed to 

consider S. Res. 4; (2) that the Chair immediately bring debate to a 

close on this motion to proceed by putting to the Senate the question 

of ending debate on the motion to consider; and (3) if that motion 

to end debate was approved by a majority of a quorum present and 

voting, that the Chair immediately put to the Senate the question of 

adopting the motion to proceed.

The majority leader raised a point of order that Senate Rules permitted no such compound motion as offered by Senator Pearson. Vice 

President Rockefeller submitted the majority leader’s point of order to 

the Senate for decision as raising a constitutional question. After a series of parliamentary inquiries, Senator Mondale moved to table the 

point of order. The Senate agreed to the motion to table, 51–42, thereby 

deciding that Senator Pearson’s compound motion was in order.

Senator Allen, however, then demanded that Senator Pearson’s 

compound motion to consider S. Res. 4 be divided. The Vice President ruled that the motion was divisible, and it was accordingly divided. The Senate proceeded to consider the fi rst division, which provided that the Senate proceed to the consideration of S. Res. 4. The 

Vice President stated that this fi rst division was debatable. At the 

end of the day’s session, the Senate adjourned, which again meant 

that the motion to proceed to consider S. Res. 4 fell.

No formal consideration of S. Res. 4 occurred on Friday and Saturday, February 21 and 22, but the Senate, primarily Senator Allen, 

did debate the issue.

On Saturday, February 22, the Senate recessed pursuant to an 

order of the previous day, but did so in the absence of a quorum. 

Proceedings on Monday, February 24, accordingly, began with a live 

quorum call, after which Senator Allen objected to the majority leader’s request that the Journal be approved to date. Senator Allen then 

offered a compound motion of his own: (1) that the Senate proceed 

to consider S. Res. 4; (2) that inasmuch as the beginning of the 94th 

Congress had now ended, debate on this motion could be brought to 

an end only pursuant to the cloture rule; (3) that the Vice President 
202

submit to the Senate any question of order presented by this motion; 

and (4) that the Senate vote directly on any such question of order, 

and not on a motion to table. Senator Allen simultaneously asked 

that his motion be divided, and it was accordingly divided. Senator 

Mondale responded by offering a compound motion (1) that the chair 

put Senator Allen’s motion to a vote without intervening action, and 

(2) that, if a majority of a quorum present and voting agreed to this 

motion to close debate, the chair then immediately put the question 

on Senator Allen’s motion to consider.

Both Senator Allen’s motion to proceed and Senator Mondale’s motion concerning its disposition continued as the pending business of 

the Senate until March 3, because the Senate began recessing rather than adjourning on each day. Because the Senate remained in the 

same legislative day, pending motions did not fall at the end of each 

day’s proceedings, and the “two-speech rule” remained continuously 

applicable to further debate. The Senate, however, was unable to 

make any disposition of any component of either Senator Allen’s or 

Senator Mondale’s motion, because opponents of S. Res. 4 continued 

debating and offering numerous procedural motions.

As soon as Senator Mondale offered his motion concerning the disposition of Senator Allen’s compound motion setting terms for proceeding to consider S. Res. 4, the majority leader raised a point of 

order against Senator Mondale’s motion. Senator Mondale moved to 

table the majority leader’s point of order. Senator Allen then proposed to supersede Senator Mondale’s motion to table by a point of 

order that Senator Mondale’s entire motion was not in order, but the 

chair ruled that Senator Mondale’s motion to table was in order, and 

Senator Allen’s point of order was out of order. When Senator Allen 

appealed, Senator Mondale moved to table the appeal.

Before the Senate acted on this motion to table Senator Allen’s 

appeal, Senator Allen moved to table the fi rst division (the motion to 

proceed to consider S. Res. 4) of his own pending compound motion. 

This motion failed, 38–49.

The Senate then agreed, 54–32, to Senator Mondale’s motion to 

table Senator Allen’s appeal from the decision of the chair overruling 

Senator Allen’s point of order that S. Res. 4 was out of order. Senator 

Allen, having voted on the prevailing side, moved to reconsider this 

vote, but the Senate agreed to table this motion to reconsider, 51–35. 

On many of the key votes on this and subsequent days of debating 

S. Res. 4, Senator Allen moved to reconsider Senate votes. He was 

never successful. This vote affi rmed the chair’s ruling that Senator 

Allen’s point of order against S. Res. 4 was not well taken, and that 

S. Res. 4 was in order.

The question then recurred on Senator Mondale’s motion to table 

the majority leader’s point of order against Senator Mondale’s motion providing for the disposition of Senator Allen’s motion for the 

consideration of S. Res. 4. The Senate tabled the majority leader’s 

point of order, 48–40, confi rming that Senator Mondale’s motion providing for the disposition of Senator Allen’s motion to consider was 

in order.

In response to a parliamentary inquiry by the majority whip, the 

Vice President stated that the pending question was Senator Mondale’s motion providing for the disposition of Senator Allen’s motion 

to consider S. Res. 4. The Vice President proposed to put that ques203

tion to a vote, but Senator Allen raised a point of order against doing 

so without permitting amendments to be offered to Senator Mondale’s motion. The Vice President overruled that point of order, and 

Senator Allen appealed, requesting recognition for debate. The Vice 

President did not recognize Senator Allen for debate on the appeal, 

holding that “an appeal arising in connection with a non-debatable 

motion is not debatable,” and put the question on the appeal (121 

Congressional Record 4116). The Senate sustained the decision of 

the chair that the question be put on Senator Mondale’s motion, 

48–40, thereby affi rming that Senator Mondale’s motion was indeed 

non-debatable.

Senator Allen moved a recess until 7 p.m., but Senator Javits 

raised a point of order that (inasmuch as Senator Mondale’s pending 

motion to dispose of Senator Allen’s motion to proceed was non-debatable) no intervening motions were in order. Although Senator Allen moved to table Senator Javits’s point of order, the Vice President 

stated that, because Senator Mondale’s motion was made under the 

Constitution, the chair would submit to the Senate the question 

whether Senator Javits’s point of order was well taken. After debate 

on the submitted point of order, the majority whip obtained unanimous consent that the Senate recess, and resume consideration of 

the point of order on the following day, with Senator Allen to be 

recognized as a continuation of his existing recognition. Pursuant to 

this order, the Senate recessed.

During these proceedings of February 24, Senator Allen also obtained several live quorum calls, and several times moved for recesses; the Senate tabled these motions. Also interspersed with these 

proceedings of February 24 were proceedings on an urgent legislative measure (S. 281, with a House amendment), including the fi ling 

of a cloture motion thereon.

On Tuesday, February 25, the Senate resumed consideration of 

Senator Mondale’s motion respecting the disposition of Senator Allen’s motion to consider S. Res. 4 and setting terms for its own disposition. The Vice President held that Senator Javits’s point of order 

against Senator Allen’s motion that the Senate recess until 7 p.m. on 

the previous day had died when the hour of 7 p.m. arrived. He also 

repeated that the motion of Senator Mondale, that the question be 

put on Senator Allen’s motion to consider S. Res. 4, with conditions, 

was non-debatable.

Senator Allen moved to postpone Senator Mondale’s motion to proceed to vote on Senator Allen’s motion to consider until the next legislative day (at which point the motion to consider would have fallen, because of the intervening adjournment that would have been 

necessary to create the new legislative day). He also asked that this 

new motion be put to the Senate as a constitutional question. Senator Allen then attempted to move for a recess, but Senator Mondale 

moved to table Senator Allen’s motion to postpone, and Senator Tower raised a point of order against Senator Allen’s motion to postpone. 

Senator Allen moved to table Senator Tower’s point of order, but the 

Vice President ruled that Senator Mondale’s motion to table Senator Allen’s motion to postpone took precedence over Senator Allen’s 

motion to table Senator Tower’s point of order. The Senate voted, 

55–35, to table the motion to postpone.
204

Senator Harry F. Byrd, Jr., then moved to postpone for one week 

consideration of Senator Mondale’s entire original motion to close 

debate and to set terms for disposing of Senator Allen’s motion to 

consider S. Res. 4. Senator Tower raised a point of order against 

Senator Harry Byrd’s motion. The Vice President stated that Senator Tower’s point of order raised a constitutional question, and accordingly submitted it to the Senate for decision. The Senate tabled 

Senator Tower’s point of order, 89–2, thereby holding in order Senator Harry Byrd’s motion to postpone consideration of Senator Mondale’s motion to vote, without further debate, on Senator Allen’s motion to consider S. Res. 4. However, the Senate then tabled Senator 

Harry Byrd’s motion to postpone, 55–37.

Senator Allen then moved to postpone consideration of Senator 

Mondale’s motion for one month, and proceeded in debate on his motion. The debate raised the question whether the Senate would allow 

cloture by a simple majority on the motion to proceed to consider 

S. Res. 4, yet also require a vote of two-thirds present and voting 

for cloture on the House amendment to S. 281 (121 Congressional 

Record 4209–4210). The majority whip obtained unanimous consent 

that the Senate lay aside the motion to proceed to S. Res. 4 until 

after an unsuccessful cloture vote in relation to S. 281, or until after 

the Senate disposed of that matter under cloture, and then take up 

the motion to proceed again “in its present status,” with Senator Allen’s motion to postpone. Thereafter the Senate recessed.

On Wednesday, February 26, the Senate invoked cloture on the 

motion to agree to the House amendment to S. 281. Senator Allen 

raised a point of order that the provisions of Rule XXII permitting 

cloture were not in effect. The chair overruled the point of order, and 

Senator Allen appealed. The Senate agreed to Senator Mondale’s 

motion to table the appeal, 92–0, thereby establishing that Rule 

XXII was in effect as governing the consideration of the legislative 

business. After disposition of the matter on which cloture had been 

invoked, the Senate resumed consideration of Senator Mondale’s 

motion that the Senate proceed without further debate to consider 

S. Res. 4, with Senator Allen’s motion to postpone consideration of 

Senator Mondale’s motion for one month. The Senate tabled Senator 

Allen’s motion to postpone, 57–34.

The majority leader then raised a point of order that Senator 

Mondale’s motion to proceed to act on Senator Allen’s motion to 

consider S. Res. 4 was not in order “insofar as it precludes debate, 

intervening motions, and amendments” (121 Congressional Record

4370). The Vice President submitted the majority leader’s point of 

order to the Senate as involving a constitutional question, and the 

Senate tabled the point of order, 46–43, thereby holding that Senator Mondale’s motion that the Senate proceed to an immediate vote 

on Senator Allen’s motion to consider S. Res. 4 was in order. By this 

action the Senate implicitly endorsed the principle that a simple voting majority could close debate on a proposal to change the Rules at 

the beginning of a new Congress.

The Vice President then stated that, inasmuch as the Senate had 

held Senator Mondale’s motion in order, the question on that motion 

was now to be put, in accordance with the terms of the motion itself 
205

(121 Congressional Record 4370). 1 Senator Long, however, was then 

recognized, and a colloquy occurred among several Senators and the 

Vice President concerning practices of recognition, followed by the 

chair in the course of proceedings leading up to the vote to table the 

majority leader’s point of order against Senator Mondale’s motion, 

that had resulted in Senator Allen not being recognized for a parliamentary inquiry.

During this colloquy, as well, Senator Long and the majority leader discussed a possible compromise under which three-fi fths of the 

entire Senate membership (a so-called “constitutional three-fi fths”), 

rather than three-fi fths of Senators present and voting, would be 

required for cloture (121 Congressional Record 4370–4372).

No further proceedings on the subject occurred until Friday, February 28, when the majority whip submitted a new resolution (S. 

Res. 93) amending Rule XXII to provide for cloture by three-fi fths 

of the full Senate on any matter except a proposal to amend Senate 

Rules, for which the existing requirement of two-thirds of Senators 

present and voting would be retained. He submitted written notice 

of his intent to move to amend Rule XXII in the way proposed, but 

also asked unanimous consent for the immediate consideration of 

his resolution. Senator Allen objected, and S. Res. 93 was accordingly laid over, under the rule. Subsequently, the majority whip also 

fi led at the desk a full-text substitute amendment for S. Res. 4 with 

the same text as S. Res. 93.

Senator Hruska then entered a motion to reconsider the vote of 

February 26 by which the Senate tabled the point of order raised by 

the majority leader against Senator Mondale’s motion to consider S. 

Res. 4 without debate. The majority leader obtained unanimous consent that the Senate vote on this motion to reconsider on Monday, 

March 3, and the majority whip obtained unanimous consent that 

no action on S. Res. 4 occur prior to that vote. Remarks made in the 

course of these proceedings indicated that these arrangements, as 

well as the new resolution submitted by the majority whip, refl ected 

the result of the negotiations that had been taking place outside the 

fl oor debate.

Before the Senate resumed consideration of the matter on Monday, March 3, Senator Allen objected to several unanimous consent 

requests to conduct routine business, including to dispense with the 

reading of the Journal. Thereafter, pursuant to its previous order, 

the Senate then took up Senator Hruska’s motion to reconsider the 

vote to table the majority leader’s point of order against that part 

of Senator Mondale’s motion that provided for an immediate vote 

on Senator Allen’s motion to proceed to consider S. Res. 4. The Senate adopted the motion to reconsider, 53–38, then rejected, on reconsideration, the motion to table the majority leader’s point of order, 

40–51, thereby bringing that point of order back before the Senate.

The Senate, however, did not immediately proceed to act anew on 

the point of order. Instead, the majority whip presented a motion for 

cloture on Senator Allen’s pending motion to proceed to consider S. 

1 Later, on March 4, Senator Allen pointed out that by this action on Feb. 26, the chair was 

interpreting the decision of the Senate to table the majority leader’s point of order not only as 

holding Senator Mondale’s motion in order, but also as approving the terms of the motion itself, 

insofar as they provided for the question to be put without debate on Senator Allen’s motion to 

proceed to consider S. Res. 4 without further debate (121 Congressional Record 5080–5083).
206

Res. 4, then moved that the Senate adjourn for fi ve minutes. (The 

adjournment would cause the motion to consider S. Res. 4 to fall, but 

if the Senate later invoked cloture on that motion, it would thereby 

bring that motion back before the Senate.) The Senate agreed to the 

motion to adjourn, but when it reconvened fi ve minutes later, Senator Allen again blocked unanimous consent to dispense with reading 

the Journal for the preceding legislative day (covering from February 21 through March 3). After the reading and a live quorum call, 

also obtained by Senator Allen, the Senate adopted a motion by the 

majority whip to adjourn for the day, 44–15.

On Tuesday, March 4, Senator Allen again insisted that the previous day’s Journal be read, after which he offered two amendments to 

the Journal. The Senate tabled both amendments, 64–25 and 60–25. 

Senator Allen next moved for a recess until 2:05 p.m. (at which point 

the Morning Hour would have expired, so that S. Res. 93, which had 

been laid over, under the rule, could no longer be called up on that 

day). The Senate rejected Senator Allen’s motion, 28–61. During a 

quorum call requested by Senator Hollings, Senator Allen moved for 

a recess until the following day. The chair ruled that a motion to recess was not in order during a quorum call, Senator Allen appealed 

the ruling; and the chair ruled that an appeal was not in order during a quorum call.

Once a quorum was established, the Senate proceeded to conduct 

morning business in the morning hour of the new legislative day. 

Senator Allen moved that the Senate proceed to consider S. Res. 4, 

but the Senate agreed to motions by the majority whip to table both 

this motion to consider, 82–8, and a motion by Senator Helms to 

reconsider this vote, 67–27. Subsequently, Senator Allen objected to 

a request of the majority whip to present a second cloture motion on 

the motion to proceed to consider S. Res. 4 (even though the motion 

to proceed was not pending). Senator Allen also objected to requests 

by the majority whip for a period for morning business on the following day, after which the Senate adjourned.

On Wednesday, March 5, the Senate unanimously consented to 

dispense with the reading of the Journal, but only after the majority 

leader obtained unanimous consent that the time before the vote on 

the March 3 motion for cloture on the motion to proceed to consider 

S. Res. 4 be divided between Senator Allen and the majority whip.

The Senate also gave unanimous consent for a vote after 10 minutes’ debate, equally divided between Senator Curtis and the majority whip, on the point of order raised by the majority leader on 

February 26 that Senator Mondale’s motion that the Senate proceed 

to vote on the motion of Senator Allen to proceed to consider S. Res. 

4 was out of order because it precluded debate, intervening motions, 

and amendments. 2 After this debate, the Senate voted, 53–43, that 

the majority leader’s point of order against Senator Mondale’s motion was well taken. This decision, that Senator Mondale’s motion 

for an immediate vote on the motion to consider the resolution to 

change the Rules was out of order, reversed the previous decision 

2 At this point, the Senate Journal notes that on February 26 the Senate had voted to table the 

majority leader’s point of order, and on March 3 it had reconsidered this vote and reversed the 

result, but had taken no further action on the point of order itself, because all pending motions 

died with the adjournment of the Senate on that date. Unanimous consent was accordingly 

necessary in order to bring about consideration of the point of order on March 5. Journal of the 

Senate, 94th Cong., 1st sess., p. 158.
207

of the Senate, and represents the ultimate action of the Senate on 

this point of order. Debate during these proceedings indicates that 

this reversal was part of the negotiated process for disposing of the 

proposal to change the Rules (121 Congressional Record 5245–5251).

Having disposed in this way of Senator Mondale’s motion for an immediate vote on Senator Allen’s motion to consider S. Res. 4, the Senate 

proceeded to invoke cloture on the motion to consider, 73–21 (a majority 

suffi cient to meet the existing requirement of Rule XXII for two-thirds 

of Senators present and voting). Later in the day, the Senate adopted 

the motion to consider, 69–26, thereby taking up S. Res. 4.

The majority whip immediately offered the amendment in the nature of a substitute he had previously fi led to S. Res. 4, embodying the proposal to require three-fi fths of the full Senate for cloture, 

except on proposals to change the Rules, for which the existing requirement of two-thirds of Senators present and voting would be 

retained. The majority whip obtained unanimous consent that this 

substitute be agreed to and considered as original text for purposes 

of further amendment, then presented a motion for cloture on the 

resolution as amended. After transacting other business, the Senate 

adjourned.

After routine morning business on Thursday, March 6, the chair 

laid S. Res. 4 (as amended) before the Senate as its unfi nished business. The majority whip obtained unanimous consent that all amendments submitted before the cloture vote scheduled for the next day 

be deemed read. (Under the provisions of Rule XXII as they stood at 

that time, this action was necessary to permit the amendments to be 

offered under cloture.) The Senate then proceeded to entertain and 

dispose of amendments to the resolution.

Senator Allen fi rst offered an amendment to add a new section 

to S. Res. 4, as amended, making explicit that the requirement for 

two-thirds of Senators present and voting to invoke cloture would 

remain the only means (other than unanimous consent) of limiting 

debate on any matter pertaining to a Rules change under all circumstances, including at the beginning of a Congress. The majority whip 

then obtained unanimous consent that the hour before the cloture 

vote on the following day be equally divided and controlled between 

himself and Senator Allen, then submitted a second motion for cloture on S. Res. 4. The Senate then adjourned.

On Friday, March 7, the Senate invoked cloture on S. Res. 4 as 

amended, 73–21. Under cloture, the majority whip moved to table Senator Allen’s amendment, pending from the previous day, to 

bar the imposition of any limit on debate on Rules changes except 

through a two-thirds vote for cloture, but Senator Allen then withdrew his amendment.

Senator Hathaway offered an amendment to provide that when 

a cloture motion was offered, it remain pending before the Senate 

until voted on. The Senate tabled this amendment, 57–33.

Senator Allen offered another version of his amendment to make 

a two-thirds vote for cloture the only means of limiting debate on a 

Rules change. He asked that it be divided, but the chair ruled that 

it could not be divided, because it was an amendment to strike out 

and insert. Senator Allen appealed the ruling of the chair, but the 

Senate tabled his appeal, 73–14, thereby sustaining the ruling that 

the amendment to strike out and insert could not be divided. During 
208

these proceedings, the majority whip had moved to table Senator 

Allen’s amendment. After the vote confi rming that the amendment 

was not divisible, the Senate tabled the amendment, 66–18.

Senator Allen next proposed an amendment to limit the number 

of times cloture could be moved in relation to any single matter. The 

Senate tabled both this amendment, 67–21, and a second version of 

it, 73–12. Senator Allen also offered an amendment to restrict motions for cloture on motions to proceed to consider a matter, which 

the Senate tabled, 75–9.

Senator Helms offered an amendment to permit Senators to yield 

portions of their allotted time under cloture to others. The chair 

sustained a point of order against the amendment by the majority 

whip on grounds that it proposed to amend the resolution at separate points. Senator Helms offered a second amendment, to increase 

to 25 the number of signers required on a cloture petition. The chair 

sustained a point of order that this amendment, too, proposed to 

amend the resolution at separate points, and the Senate tabled an 

appeal of the ruling by voice vote.

Senator Allen offered an amendment to postpone the effective date 

of the amendment to the Rules. The Senate adopted, on a division 

vote, a motion of the majority whip to table the amendment. Senator 

Allen proceeded to offer a further 17 amendments, one of which he 

withdrew after debate, and the other 16 of which the Senate tabled 

by voice vote. Among these amendments, Senator Allen again called 

up the initial version of his amendment to make explicit that debate 

on a proposal to change the Rules could, under any circumstances, 

be limited only through cloture, which he had fi rst offered on the 

previous day and withdrawn earlier on this day.

The Senate then adopted, by voice vote, technical amendments en 

bloc offered by the majority whip. After further debate, it adopted 

S. Res. 4, as amended, 56–27, and tabled a motion to reconsider the 

vote (121 Congressional Record 5646–5652).

Pursuant to the 1975 amendment, the pertinent part of paragraph 

2 of Rule XXII read as follows:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of Rule III or Rule VI or 

any other rule of the Senate, any time a motion signed by sixteen Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, 

motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Offi cer 

shall at once state the motion to the Senate, and one hour after 

the Senate meets on the following calendar day but one, he shall 

lay the motion before the Senate and direct that the Secretary 

call the roll, and upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding Offi cer shall, without debate, submit to the 

Senate by a yea-and-nay vote the question:

“ Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought 

to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affi rmative by 

three-fi fths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a 

measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the 

necessary affi rmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators 

present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter 

pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, shall be 

the unfi nished business to the exclusion of all other business 

until disposed of.
(209)

THE 1976 AMENDMENT

Senator Edward M. Kennedy on September 26, 1975, introduced 

S. Res. 268, 94th Congress, to amend the second sentence of the 

fi nal paragraph of section 2 of Rule XXII, which read as follows: 

“Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be in order after the vote to bring debate to a close, unless the same has been 

presented and read prior to that time.” The language of S. Res. 268 

eliminated this “reading requirement” by providing that: “Except by 

unanimous consent, no amendment shall be in order after the vote 

to bring the debate to a close, unless the same has been submitted 

to the Presiding Offi cer prior to that time.”

At Majority Whip Robert C. Byrd’s urging, however, the Senate 

Committee on Rules and Administration amended this proposal to 

tighten the procedure of submitting amendments. The language of 

the resolution as reported from committee required that any amendment not “presented and read” be submitted in triplicate, printed or 

typed, and submitted 30 minutes before the beginning of a cloture 

vote. Noting that this resolution did not change the requirement 

that amendments considered after the cloture vote be germane and 

that the resolution gave Senators time to make an informed vote 

on cloture, the Committee recommended passage. (S. Rept. No. 521, 

94th Cong., 1st Sess., 1975).

When the Senate proceeded to consider S. Res. 268 on April 5, 

Senator Kennedy argued that:

. . . a combination of several signifi cant factors—the long 

experience under Rule XXII, the current procedures available 

for easily informing Senators of amendments likely to be considered, and the existence of the germaneness requirement 

under the rule obviate the need for continuation of the reading requirement in modern Senate practice. (122 Congressional 

Record 9406).

Although the reading requirement could be waived by unanimous 

consent, he said that some Senators had inadvertently neglected to 

obtain the waiver.

He did oppose, however, the amendment of the Committee on 

Rules and Administration as being unnecessary and impractical, 

and Senator Byrd agreed. Together they sought to substitute Senator Kennedy’s amendment requiring a submission “in writing” of any 

amendment before the warning bell rings—7 and one half minutes 

before the cloture vote ends.

On April 6, Senators Kennedy and Bartlett offered a substitute 

amendment, modifying the earlier Kennedy amendment to permit 

the submission in writing of any amendment before the end of the 

cloture vote. Prompting this change was the recognition that the 

time for the ringing of the warning bell might vary and could not 

be anticipated. (122 Congressional Record 9680). By unanimous con210

sent this substitute amendment was modifi ed to direct the submission to the Journal Clerk instead of the Presiding Offi cer.

Senator Griffi n opposed the Kennedy-Bartlett substitute amendment arguing that: “Anything that takes away the information and 

the notice, thus making it more diffi cult for the Senate to fi nd out 

what it is voting on, is going to mean, that we are going to be less 

likely to invoke cloture.” (122 Congressional Record 9683). By a vote 

of 30–64, the Senate rejected Senator Hatfi eld’s motion to table the 

resolution until the beginning of the next Congress.

The Senate then adopted the Kennedy-Bartlett substitute amendment, 72–22. (122 Congressional Record 9684). At this point Senator 

Allen offered an amendment to substitute “proposed” for “in order” 

because otherwise the resolution implied that all amendments complying with the procedure of S. Res. 268 would be in order after 

the cloture vote. The germaneness requirement, however, prevented many amendments which were properly submitted before the 

cloture vote from being “in order” afterwards. The Senate adopted 

the Allen amendment, 78–17. (122 Congressional Record 9685–86). 

The Senate then agreed by voice vote to S. Res. 268 as amended. 

(122 Congressional Record 9686). The language of the resolution as 

amended is as follows:

Resolved, That the second sentence of the fi nal paragraph of 

section 2 of Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate is 

amended to read as follows: “Except by unanimous consent, no 

amendment shall be proposed after the vote to bring the debate 

to a close, unless the same has been submitted in writing to the 

Journal Clerk prior to the end of the vote.”
(211)

THE 1979 AMENDMENT

On January 15, 1979, the fi rst day of the 96th Congress, Majority 

Leader Robert C. Byrd submitted S. Res. 9, providing for changes in 

a number of Senate Rules, including the cloture rule. He presented 

these changes as means of reducing the opportunities for delay on 

the Senate fl oor. He referred to the debate on the natural gas deregulation bill, S. 2104, at the end of the preceding Congress, when 

post-cloture consideration had been protracted by numerous amendments and procedural motions as part of a post-cloture fi libuster 

(125 Congressional Record 143–149).

Senator Byrd moved that the Senate proceed, without debate, to 

the immediate consideration of the resolution, adopting the argument that, on the fi rst day of session in a new Congress, the Senate 

could bring debate to a close by majority vote on proposals to change 

its Rules. Unable, however, to obtain unanimous consent to set a 

date for a fi nal vote on the resolution, Senator Byrd recessed the 

Senate from day to day until February 7, thus retaining his ability to invoke the above argument by keeping the Senate in its fi rst 

legislative day. On February 7, Senator Byrd obtained unanimous 

consent that the Senate proceed to consider a resolution consisting 

of only those provisions of S. Res. 9 that dealt with postcloture procedure, but that if this new resolution received no fi nal action by 

February 22, the original S. Res. 9 would recur as the pending business. Senator Byrd announced that if the new resolution were acted 

on by the time specifi ed, he would adjourn the Senate, so that S. 

Res. 9 could no longer be considered under the conditions that might 

pertain on the fi rst day of a new Congress (125 Congressional Record 2001–2005, 2032–2033). (This course of action was eventually 

followed, and S. Res. 9 received no further action. 125 Congressional 

Record 3037, 3040.)

The parts of S. Res. 9 omitted from consideration under this agreement included those (1) providing for non-debatable motions to approve and to correct the Journal; (2) limiting debate to 30 minutes 

on motions, made after 2 p.m., to proceed to consider a measure; (3) 

permitting non-debatable motions to waive the reading of amendments that had been printed and had been identifi ed by the clerk, 

and of conference reports that had been printed; (4) establishing 

a non-debatable motion to prohibit nongermane amendments to a 

measure by a three-fi fths vote; (5) requiring cloture motions submitted after September 1 to be voted on three hours after their submission; (6) changing from three days to two the time a committee 

report on a measure must be available before the measure might be 

considered; and (7) directing the installation of an electronic voting 

system.

The remainder of S. Res. 9 was taken up under the designation of 

S. Res. 61. In its original form, it limited post-cloture consideration 

of any measure to 100 hours of actual consideration. When the 100 
212

hours expired, the Senate would proceed directly to a fi nal vote on 

the measure and any pending amendments; no further amendments 

could be called up, and only specifi ed motions would be in order. The 

100-hour cap could be increased, or could be decreased to not less 

than 20 hours, by a non-debatable motion approved by three-fi fths of 

the Senators chosen and sworn (normally, 60 Senators). If a decrease 

were agreed to, the remaining time would be equally divided and 

controlled by the two party fl oor leaders. Each motion would be in 

order once in a calendar day.

The diffi culty in arriving at an agreement for consideration of this 

measure arose in part because Senators wished to be assured that 

serious consideration would be given to additional proposals that 

they intended to advance. On February 7, Assistant Minority Leader 

Stevens described an alternative plan, emerging from the discussions of an ad hoc committee appointed by the leadership. Virtually 

all of the proposals discussed during consideration of S. Res. 61 initially appeared, in some form, in S. Res. 9 or in this alternative plan.

The central features of the alternative proposal were that all time 

used by a Senator until he yielded the fl oor, including time required 

for votes and quorum calls, be charged against the hour allotted to 

that Senator for post-cloture debate, and that Senators be allowed 

to yield their time to each other, or back to the chair. A Senator objecting to terminating a quorum call would be charged with the rest 

of the time consumed, and a Senator with less than ten minutes remaining would be prohibited from making such an objection. Senator Stevens explained that “Above all the concession we are willing 

to make is to put a total cap on the time after cloture of 100 hours. 

Everything that happens on this fl oor would be chargeable to that 

100 hours, and even that time could be reduced through the concept 

of each Member making the decision to yield back his time” (125 

Congressional Record 2002–2005).

Among the provisions of the alternative plan were that, once cloture had been invoked on a measure, (1) consideration of the measure be limited to eight hours per calendar day; (2) preference in 

recognition be accorded Senators seeking to appeal rulings of the 

chair; (3) the offering of amendments in the second degree be in order, even if not submitted before cloture, if germane to pending fi rst 

degree amendments; (4) if the measure were to be reprinted, amendments previously in order could be conformed to the new printing 

and reprinted also; (5) the Journal not be read; and (6) amendments 

that had been printed, available for 24 hours, and identifi ed by the 

clerk, not be read when offered.

On the following day, Senator Stevens submitted for printing a 

revision of this proposal, which (1) omitted the restriction of postcloture consideration to eight hours per day; (2) limited the time that 

could be yielded to any single Senator to nine hours; (3) exempted 

roll call votes from the time to be charged against a Senator’s hour; 

and (4) provided that amendments under cloture could “amend the 

measure or matter in more than one place, if they involve only one 

substantive issue.” It also added further provisions for appealing 

rulings of the chair, specifying that if any of a Senator’s amendments at the desk were ruled out of order, he would be entitled to 

one appeal of such rulings, not charged against his time; he could 

take such an appeal en bloc on all of his amendments that had been 
213

ruled out of order, or on such of them as he chose (125 Congressional 

Record 2188).

On February 8, when sustained debate on S. Res. 61 began, Senator Byrd again defi ned the problem by saying that “There is no cure 

for the post-cloture fi libuster in the rules.” He stated that in earlier years, “Once cloture was invoked, [Senators] recognized that the 

Senate had indicated that it was its will that the matter be brought 

to a close. They did not resort to dilatory tactics . . . .” (125 Congressional Record 2132–3133).

Similar concerns were addressed on the following day, when Senator Muskie advanced the view that germane and “meaningful” debate, conducted in accordance with the principle of comity, had been 

more common in earlier years. Senator Helms responded that he 

was “persuaded that if the two-thirds vote to impose cloture were 

still in existence, comity in the Senate would take care of it . . . . In 

the early 1950’s, . . . there was no disposition to drag out a matter 

after cloture had been voted.” Senator Long, too, stated that in earlier years, “we always felt that when cloture was voted that was the 

end of it, that we could offer amendments and had 1 hour to talk, 

but that the fi libuster was over . . . .” (125 Congressional Record

2183–2386).

Also on February 8 and 9, the Senate agreed, by voice vote, to nine 

amendments offered by Senator Byrd, four of which were technical, 

including clarifi cations that (1) the 100 hours could be increased at 

any time, but could be decreased only after ten hours had been consumed, and then only to not less than ten additional hours, and (2) 

the revised cloture rule would apply to any “measure or matter” (125 

Congressional Record 2134–2135, 2391–2392).

The fi fth of Senator Byrd’s amendments incorporated the proposal 

to allow amendments to be conformed if a measure under cloture 

were reprinted, but restricted the conforming changes to lines and 

pages, on the grounds advanced by Senator Byrd that, without such 

a restriction, “It is too ambiguous and too vague . . . the interpretations and constructions of such [a provision] could vary . . . .” (125 

Congressional Record 2135).

The sixth amendment in this group provided that no Senator be 

recognized to offer more than two amendments before each Senator 

had had a chance to call up two (125 Congressional Record 2136–

2137). Such a provision had just been suggested by Senator Long. 

Senator Byrd explained that it was intended to meet the “hypothetical situation” that a Senator could be “completely shut out from offering an amendment; that the Chair might refuse to recognize him 

and would, instead, continue to recognize other Senators to call up 

their amendments; and that at the end of 100 hours . . . a Senator 

might not have had the opportunity to call up his amendment because he could not get recognized” (125 Congressional Record 2389). 

Senator Byrd also remarked, however, that “in practice I cannot conceive of its happening” because “the maximum number of Senators 

ever to . . . seek to use their hour after cloture was invoked was 

something like 27 . . . . Nor can I conceive of any Presiding Offi cer 

who would consistently refuse to recognize a Member of the Senate 

on either side of the aisle who had not been accorded recognition” 

(125 Congressional Record 2136).
214

The seventh amendment embodied a modifi cation of the alternative proposal’s provisions for yielding time. It provided that a Senator could yield back his time, in which case the 100-hour cap would 

be reduced by the time yielded back. It also provided that the party 

fl oor leaders and the managers of the bill, and only those Senators, 

could be yielded up to two hours each, from which they could in turn 

yield to others. In this connection, Senator Byrd stated that, for example, “If the minority leader is out of town . . . it . . . should be 

the intent . . . that the acting minority leader would be standing in 

the stead of the minority leader, and could thus be the recipient of 

the additional time” (125 Congressional Record 2385–2388, 2391).

A rationale for such provisions was indicated by Senator Long: 

“. . . if you assume that 50 Senators have amendments they want 

to offer and each has an hour . . . ordinarily, the person who would 

be expected to speak against it would be the manager of the bill. The 

manager of the bill might be compelled to limit his time, so that he 

would be using only 1 minute to the other side’s solid 1 hour . . . .” 

(125 Congressional Record 2385).

Senator Byrd’s next amendment provided that a motion to decrease the 100-hour cap, which S. Res. 61 proposed to make in order after ten hours of post-cloture debate, could reduce the time to 

twenty additional hours, instead of ten (125 Congressional Record

2387–2388). Previously, Senator McClure had voiced the view that 

“the proposition that a three-fi fths vote can limit the debate to 20 

hours . . . unduly limits the guarantees to individual Members, and 

whatever the minority group might be . . . with respect to the right 

to debate or offer amendments even in the postcloture situation” 

(125 Congressional Record 2135).

The fi nal amendment of this group again responded, Senator 

Byrd said, to “those who are yet concerned, and who say, ‘Well, 100 

hours may pass, and a Senator may not have had an opportunity 

to speak’,” though he called this possibility “highly unlikely.” Under 

the amendment, if a Senator had not used or yielded at least ten 

minutes when the cap expired, that Senator could speak, but not 

“offer amendments or make motions or points of order,” until the 

total time charged to him reached ten minutes (125 Congressional 

Record 2389–2390).

Consideration of S. Res. 61 then went over until February 21, 

1979, when the Senate had returned from a recess. On February 

21, Senator Byrd announced that he now considered that “Senators 

who yield back all or part of an hour should not, by virtue of that 

action, be able automatically to reduce the time of other Senators;” 

he accordingly asked and received unanimous consent to delete the 

provision allowing a Senator to do so (125 Congressional Record

2833–2834).

On February 21 and 22, Senator Stevens offered a series of amendments refl ecting provisions of the alternative plan he had previously 

described in debate. In several instances, in which these amendments sought to amend language that had already been amended, 

unanimous consent was obtained that they be in order.

Senator Stevens’ fi rst amendment provided for dispensing with 

the reading of the Journal under cloture. Senator Byrd suggested 

that in such a case, the Journal should also be considered approved 

to date. The two Senators having agreed that such a provision 
215

would not prevent a privileged motion to correct the Journal from 

being subsequently made under Rule III, Senator Stevens modifi ed 

his amendment accordingly, and the amendment, as modifi ed, was 

agreed to (125 Congressional Record 2834–2835).

Senator Stevens’ second amendment provided that amendments 

need not be read, under cloture, if they had been identifi ed, printed, and available for 24 hours. The presiding offi cer ruled, during 

a colloquy on the subject between Senators Stevens and Byrd, that 

although photocopies of handwritten amendments would not be included under this provision, “if it is intended to include typewritten 

and Xerox materials, as has been indicated, they would be so included in the term ‘printed.’ ” The amendment, with a technical modifi cation, was then adopted (125 Congressional Record 2835–2836).

Senator Stevens’ next amendment provided that amendments in 

the second degree that had not been submitted before the cloture 

vote could still be proposed after cloture, and could amend the bill in 

more than one place if one issue was involved. He argued that such 

a provision would allow the Senate to avoid getting “into the position 

that it was impossible to get a change in the bill that would meet the 

consensus of the Senate.” Senator Byrd responded that “this would 

punish Senators who prepare and fi le fi rst degree amendments before cloture is invoked,” and that, under this plan, “a Senator . . . 

can haul in a complete substitute that never was in writing or contemplated when cloture was invoked; and Senators who voted for 

cloture might not have done so had they seen that substitute.” After 

some discussion of the issue, Senator Stevens withdrew the amendment (125 Congressional Record 2836–2840).

Senator Stevens then offered a version of the plan to replace the 

100-hour cap with the aggregate of each Senator’s 1-hour allotment. 

In this version, a Senator was to be charged with all time consumed 

until he yielded the fl oor, including roll call votes and quorum calls. 

This amendment would also have restored the yielding back of time 

to reduce the cap, and would have broadened the existing provisions 

of S. Res. 61 by permitting yielding a maximum of nine hours to any 

Senator, rather than a maximum of two hours to fl oor leaders and 

managers only.

Senator Stevens defended broadening the provisions for yielding 

time on the grounds that “the actual leadership on a particular bill 

or amendment that has been subject to cloture may not lie with the 

[formal] leadership.” He advocated his method of limiting debate by 

saying that “if you are going to have the concept by which 100 hours 

can be reduced . . . you also have to have some control for an individual Senator . . . . We are saying that once a Senator is recognized, he is entitled to hold the fl oor, notwithstanding anything that 

occurs, until he has fi nished his discussion.” He later amplifi ed this 

argument by pointing out that “Senate Resolution 61 will permit the 

same 60 Senators who voted to terminate debate, to reduce the time 

to a total of 30 hours.”

In debate on this amendment, Senator Byrd foresaw precedential 

and technical problems with deeming a Senator to retain the fl oor 

during calls of the roll. He and Senator Sarbanes also pointed out 

that S. Res. 61, as then written, would permit a Senator to offer 

many amendments, once the provision requiring each Senator to 

be allowed to offer two amendments had been satisfi ed, while the 
216

plan contained in the amendment would likely limit a Senator to no 

more than four amendments, if roll call votes were ordered on each. 

Senator Stevens responded that the provisions for yielding of time 

would mitigate the latter problem, but Senator Byrd still objected 

that the plan “removes any semblance of a cap,” and “when the Senate gets away from the concept of a cap, I do not think it will have 

any remedy for the present ill.” Senator Stevens further responded 

that, because all time was to be charged, with the minor exception of 

portions of certain quorum calls, an effective limit on overall debate 

would remain. He characterized the amendment as “chang[ing] the 

approach of S. Res. 61 so that there would be a cap of 100 hours 

made up of each individual Member’s 1 hour” (125 Congressional 

Record 2840–2856, 3008–3010).

After debate, Senator Stevens received unanimous consent for a 

technical modifi cation to the amendment, and Senator Byrd received 

unanimous consent for completing the consideration of the Stevens 

amendment on the following morning. Senator Helms then offered 

an amendment embodying the proposal to limit consideration of a 

matter under cloture to eight hours per calendar day. On February 

22, this amendment was tabled, 52–39 (125 Congressional Record

3011).

The question then recurred on Senator Stevens’ amendment to 

limit debate by controlling how time could be charged and yielded. 

Senator Stevens asked unanimous consent to modify the amendment to allow Senators to have fi ve, rather than nine, additional 

hours yielded to them; Senator Byrd objected. The amendment was 

then tabled, 51–38 (125 Congressional Record 3010).

Senator Stevens continued to offer amendments embodying elements of the alternative plan, next proposing to delete the authority for motions to reduce the 100-hour cap, “because that power to 

decrease the time, coupled with the time that would be running on 

quorum calls and voting [, which] would not be chargeable against 

anyone but would be chargeable against the cap, could eliminate the 

ability of a Senator to seek the time that the rules imply he is entitled to.” This amendment was agreed to, 92–2 (125 Congressional 

Record 3011–3014, 3017).

Senator Stevens’ last amendment proposed to allow up to two 

hours to be yielded to any Senator, rather than only to fl oor leaders 

and managers. He argued that the narrower arrangement was inadequate because “I want to have my right to speak guaranteed under 

the rule, not granted to me . . . by some other Member.” Senator 

McClure then proposed a second degree amendment to permit fi ve, 

rather than two, hours to be yielded.

Senator Byrd opposed these amendments, noting that such yielding could already be, and had been, permitted by unanimous consent 

in post-cloture situations. Under the proposed amendment, “There 

are other Senators who just have to sit there and see time yielded 

away that will eventually come out of their hide under the cap. They 

cannot interpose an objection.” He stated that he was even “willing to wipe out the amendment I offered the other day to include 

the majority leader and the minority leader among those to whom 

as much as two hours could be yielded.” Senator Javits then asked 

whether, under S. Res. 61, time under the control of the managers could “be yielded to the one who is truly leading the opposition? 
217

And . . . May these 2 hours be broken up so . . . you might yield . . . 

10 or 15 minutes to a particular Member leading the opposition?” 

Senator Byrd responded in the affi rmative. On Senator Byrd’s motion, and on a vote of 51–43, Senator Stevens’ amendment was then 

tabled, taking the second degree amendment with it (125 Congressional Record 3014–3019).

At this point, Senator Byrd offered, for himself and Senator Stevens, a new amendment dealing with the permissibility of second 

degree amendments under cloture. It provided that, except by unanimous consent, fi rst degree amendments could be offered after cloture only if they had been fi led at the desk by 1 p.m. of the day after 

the fi ling of the cloture motion, and second degree amendments only 

if fi led by one hour before the beginning of the cloture vote. Senator Byrd explained that the 1976 amendment to Rule XXII, allowing amendments to be called up if they had been fi led at the desk 

before cloture, had “made it possible for a Senator to walk up to the 

desk during a cloture vote [and] turn in 500 amendments,” and “no 

Senator could write an amendment in the second degree because 

his amendment had not been in writing at the desk at the time the 

vote was announced on cloture.” Senator Stevens indicated that this 

amendment dealt satisfactorily with the concerns addressed by his 

proposal to permit second degree amendments after cloture. The 

amendment, with a technical modifi cation, was agreed to on a voice 

vote (125 Congressional Record 3019–3021).

Senator Javits next offered two amendments. The fi rst of these 

proposed to increase to three the number of amendments a Senator 

could offer before all other Senators had the same opportunity. Senator Javits stated that his intent was to establish the principle of 

alternation in recognition under cloture, so as to preclude such situations as had occurred during the debate on deregulation of natural 

gas, when the majority leader had successively called up numerous 

amendments. Senators Sarbanes and Byrd opposed writing such a 

requirement into the Rules, because, as Senator Byrd stated, “If a 

Senator has not made up his mind and is neither an opponent nor 

a proponent, but just wants to get recognized, there is no category 

for him.” Senator Javits rejoined that “I do not want to leave it to 

the discretion of the Chair, period. What I am perfectly willing to do 

is say, if the Senator will join me, that . . . in substance . . . there 

will be alternate recognition, given whatever situation is before the 

Chair.” On Senator Byrd’s assurance that “In spirit, I agree with 

that,” Senator Javits withdrew his amendment (125 Congressional 

Record 3021–3022).

Senator Javits’ second amendment embodied the proposal that, if 

amendments offered by a Senator were ruled out of order, the Senator would be entitled to preferential recognition for one appeal en 

bloc, with the vote not charged against his hour. The Javits amendment also provided that the time consumed by roll call votes would 

not be charged against the 100-hour cap. Senator Javits argued that 

“the 100 hours could . . . deprive Members of roll calls because, once 

the 100 hours expired, Senators who desired roll calls would be unable to obtain them. Under his proposal, Senator Javits held, the 

expiration of debate time would not cut off roll calls, so that roll calls 

would in this sense “be a matter of right for individual Senators.”
218

Senators Sarbanes and Byrd both objected that not charging the 

time for roll call votes would effectively eliminate the 100-hour cap, 

and maintain the possibility of a post-cloture fi libuster. Senator Javits argued that amendments could still be ruled out of order as 

dilatory, as had happened in the natural gas deregulation debate, 

Senator Sarbanes rejoined that “In the energy postcloture fi libuster . . . new ground was broken with respect to rulings from the 

Chair on dilatory amendments . . . Having had that experience . . . 

it . . . will not take much skill, to prepare amendments which are 

not subject to [that] attack.” Senator Byrd also noted several other 

procedural diffi culties he saw in the proposal. He then moved to 

table the amendment; the Senate did so, 55–37 (125 Congressional 

Record 3022–3027).

At this point, Senator Chafee suggested that, under the provisions 

of S. Res. 61, “if a Senator gets the fl oor after cloture and starts 

on his way through a series of dilatory motions, quorum calls, et 

cetera, they could eat away at the 100-hour cap, so that, in effect, it 

does not work out that every Senator is guaranteed 1 hour.” Senator Byrd agreed, but listed several safeguards protecting individual 

Senators against such situations. It was unlikely, in his view, that 

as “a practical situation in the course of 100 hours . . . a Senator 

is not able to get recognition.” No Senator could call up more than 

two amendments before every other Senator had a chance to do so. 

The fl oor leaders and managers could yield time to other Senators 

out of the extra two hours which could be yielded to each of them. 

Each Senator was to be guaranteed ten minutes to speak even if the 

cap expired. Three-fi fths of the Senate could increase the 100 hour 

period (125 Congressional Record 3028).

Senator Byrd then asked unanimous consent to offer an amendment to strike the provisions allowing the fl oor leaders to be yielded 

up to two hours of additional time, on the grounds that “the two leaders have preferential recognition to begin with,” whereas, as Senator 

Sarbanes pointed out, “The rationale for the extra time for the fl oor 

managers is somewhat different . . . they very quickly use up their 

hour in responding to amendments.” However, Senator Chafee said 

that “I do not think that in 3 hours, [the fl oor leaders] can go rampant,” and objected to the request (125 Congressional Record 3029).

Senator Byrd also discussed, but did not offer, an amendment that 

would have provided that, when cloture was invoked on a motion 

to proceed to consider a measure, the time for debate under cloture 

would be limited to three hours. He presented this as a provision 

that would aid the majority leader in arranging the schedule (125 

Congressional Record 3033–3035).

Before the fi nal vote on S. Res. 61, as amended, Senator Byrd 

raised parliamentary inquiries whether, if a measure under cloture 

were voted on when the 100-hour cap had expired, the making of a 

motion to reconsider, or its adoption, would open up any additional 

time for debate. The presiding offi cer responded that it would not 

(125 Congressional Record 3036).

The Senate then agreed to S. Res. 61, as amended, 78–16.

As agreed to, S. Res. 61 included the following provisions. (1) After 100 hours of consideration of a matter under cloture, the Senate would proceed to vote on fi nal disposition thereof, excluding all 

amendments not then pending, all motions except those to table or 
219

reconsider, and one quorum call. (2) It would be in order to make one 

undebatable motion per calendar day, the adoption of which would 

require three-fi fths of all Senators, to increase the 100 hours, with 

any such additional time equally divided and controlled by the majority and minority leaders. (3) If a matter under cloture was reprinted, it would be in order to conform the lineation and pagination 

of amendments to the matter there were previously in order. (4) No 

Senator could call up more than two amendments before each had 

the opportunity to call up two. (5) Senators could yield all or part of 

their hour to a manager or fl oor leader, up to a total of two hours 

each, who could in turn yield time to others. (6) After the time for 

consideration had expired, any Senator who had not used or yielded 

at least ten minutes could be recognized, for debate only, until his 

or her total time used and yielded equaled ten minutes. (7) Amendments would not be read if printed and available 24 hours before 

they were called up. (8) First degree amendments could be fi led until 

1 p.m. of the day after a cloture motion was fi led, and second degree 

amendments until one hour before the beginning of the cloture vote. 

(9) After cloture was invoked, the Journal would not be read, and 

would be considered approved to date.

As amended by S. Res. 61, paragraph 2 of Rule XXII read as follows:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any 

other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen 

Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished 

business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Offi cer, or 

clerk at the direction of the Presiding Offi cer, shall at once state 

the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets 

on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion 

before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and 

upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding 

Offi cer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-andnay vote the question:

“Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought 

to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affi rmative by 

three-fi fths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a 

measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the 

necessary affi rmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators 

present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter 

pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, shall be 

the unfi nished business to the exclusion of all other business 

until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more 

than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending 

before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, the amendments 

thereto, and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty 

of the Presiding Offi cer to keep the time of each Senator who 

speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be 

proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it 

had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o’clock 

p.m. on the day following the fi ling of the cloture motion if an 

amendment in the fi rst degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture 

vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, 

or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in 

order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and ap220

peals from the decision of the Presiding Offi cer, shall be decided 

without debate.

After no more than one hundred hours of consideration of the 

measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on 

any question, to vote on the fi nal disposition thereof to the exclusion of all amendments not then actually pending before the 

Senate at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a 

motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand 

to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to 

establish a quorum) immediately before the fi nal vote begins. 

The one hundred hours may be increased by the adoption of a 

motion, decided without debate, by a three-fi fths affi rmative vote 

of the Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus 

agreed upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by 

the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. However, 

only one motion to extend time, specifi ed above, may be made in 

any one calendar day.

If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior 

to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in 

order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the 

amendment’s sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited 

to lineation and pagination.

No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.

Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may 

yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority fl oor 

managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the Majority 

or Minority Leader, but each Senator specifi ed shall not have 

more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield 

such time to other Senators.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator 

who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks 

recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak 

only.

After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the 

proposed amendment has been identifi ed and has been available in printed form at the desk of the Member for not less than 

twenty-four hours.
(221)

THE 1986 AMENDMENT

In the 99th Congress (1985–1986), the Senate, while adopting 

regulations governing the public broadcast of chamber fl oor proceedings, also agreed to amend paragraph 2 of Rule XXII to reduce the 

time permitted for post-cloture consideration of a measure or matter 

from 100 hours to 30 hours. This amendment represents the only occasion from 1979 through 2010 on which the Senate adopted changes to its cloture rule.

The process of authorizing and implementing broadcast coverage of 

the Senate covered several Congresses. In the 97th Congress (1981–

1982), the Senate had adopted S. Res. 20, authorizing broadcast coverage of the chamber. Some Senators, while supporting broadcast 

coverage in principle, expressed concern about how viewers might 

react to the Senate’s unfamiliar procedures and practices, especially 

its tradition of often extended debate and its lengthy quorum calls 

and roll call votes. Many Senators harboring such concerns viewed 

the idea of broadcasting the Senate fl oor on television and changing 

the standing rules as related subjects which should necessarily be 

considered together.

Because of widespread concern that S. Res. 20 did not “provide 

enough detail on issues of implementation” (S. Rept. 99–190, p. 2), 

the resolution was amended before its fi nal passage to become effective only after the Senate had adopted regulations specifi cally governing such broadcasts. The Committee on Rules and Administration was given 60 days to formulate and report such regulations, a 

deadline which was extended twice. On July 27, 1982, the Committee on Rules and Administration reported S. Res. 436 establishing 

procedures necessary to implement television and radio coverage of 

the Senate fl oor. Congress adjourned, however, before S. Res. 436 

saw action.

In the 98th Congress (1983–1984), the Senate had considered S. 

Res. 66, which was substantially similar in content to S. Res. 436 

from the previous Congress. The resolution was returned to the calendar when the Senate failed to invoke cloture on it.

On January 3, 1985, the fi rst day of the 99th Congress, Senate Minority Leader Byrd and Senator Gore introduced S. Res. 28, which 

was referred to the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration. 

As introduced, the resolution established procedures governing radio 

and television broadcast coverage of the Senate, including the establishment of a “test period” for such coverage, and proposed changes 

in various aspects of Senate parliamentary procedure. (Senator Byrd 

also submitted a series of other resolutions, S. Res. 2, 20–27, and 

29, that either duplicated or contained individual provisions from S. 

Res. 28.)

The changes in Senate procedures proposed by S. Res. 28 as introduced included a modifi cation to Senate Rule XXII requiring that 

the motion for cloture be carried by two-thirds of Senators duly cho222

sen and sworn. After cloture was invoked, any appeal from a ruling by the chair on the question of germaneness would have to be 

carried by two-thirds of those present and voting. Additionally, once 

cloture had been invoked, no more than 20 hours would be available 

for further Senate consideration, with the time equally divided and 

controlled by the majority and minority leaders or their designees. 

As introduced, the resolution also included:

• A requirement that any vote be conducted by electronic voting 

procedures upon the joint agreement of the Senate majority and minority leaders. Electronic votes would last no more than 15 minutes 

with subsequent “back-to-back” votes lasting 5 minutes;

• A new motion, which could be made twice in a calendar day, 

whose adoption would require that amendments be germane to the 

measure or to the committee substitute amendment being considered by the Senate. The motion would be subject to limited debate 

and have to be carried by a vote of three-fi fths of Senators present 

and voting;

• A requirement for Committee reports generally to be available 

for two (instead of three) days before Senate consideration, with 

Sundays and holidays excluded;

• A prohibition on invoking the “defense of germaneness” on 

amendments to appropriations measures unless there was specifi c 

legislative language on the subject contained in the bill received 

from the House;

• Abolition of the use of the Committee-of-the-Whole parliamentary device for the consideration of treaties in executive session; and

• A clarifi cation of the requirement that a Senate committee report could not be ordered by poll, but instead required a majority of 

the committee physically present.

The Committee on Rules and Administration held hearings on 

regulations for the television broadcast of Senate proceedings on 

September 17 and 18, 1985, and marked up and ordered reported 

(with amendments) a star print version of S. Res. 28 on October 

29, 1985. The measure was reported to the Senate on November 18, 

1985. As reported, S. Res. 28 provided for a test period implementation of live, gavel-to-gavel radio broadcast coverage of all proceedings in the Senate Chamber, and a closed circuit test of television 

coverage of all proceedings, except, in both cases, when a closed-door 

session was ordered. During its markup, however, the Committee on 

Rules and Administration stripped S. Res. 28 of all Rules changes 

related to the legislative process, including those directed at the 

Senate cloture rule. The recommendation of the Rules Committee 

was for the test period to be used by the Senate to debate whether 

parliamentary rules changes, including changes in the cloture rule, 

were necessary. The committee report noted that deletion of the rule 

changes:

. . . should not be seen as [severing] the linkage between 

the necessity for consideration of rules changes and the decision to televise Senate proceedings. The committee believes that 

these [rules change proposals] represent an important effort to 

streamline Senate proceedings and that they should be the subject of careful and extensive review (S. Rept. 99–190, p. 4).

On February 3, 1986, S. Res. 28 was laid before the Senate by 

unanimous consent. The Senate debated it on February 4–7, 19–20, 
223

and 25–27. During this time, an informal bipartisan working group 

met regularly in the majority and minority leader’s offi ces to seek an 

agreement on what standing rules changes should accompany the 

introduction of broadcasts.

On February 19, Majority Leader Dole moved to recommit S. Res. 

28 to the Committee on Rules and Administration with instructions to report back forthwith with an amendment in the nature of 

a substitute representing recommendations by this informal working group. This substitute amendment, which was cosponsored by 

Senator Byrd, as well as Rules and Administration Committee Chair 

Stevens and Ranking Member Ford, would have created a 20-hour 

cap on consideration after cloture, and a requirement that cloture 

be invoked by the vote of two-thirds of Senators present and voting, 

except for Rules changes, on which invoking cloture would require 

passage by two-thirds of Senators chosen and sworn. The substitute 

amendment also would have:

• Provided for a three-month test period of gavel-to-gavel radio 

and television broadcast coverage of the Senate;

• Established a two-hour debate limit on the motion to proceed;

• Established a two calendar day layover for committee reports;

• Eliminated use of the Committee of the Whole for the consideration of treaties in executive session;

• Permitted the Senate, by adoption of a motion which would 

be in order twice daily, to impose a germaneness requirement on 

amendments; and

• Required conference reports to be available on a Senator’s desk 

before their consideration.

Under the terms of the amendment, these Rules changes would 

apply during the broadcast coverage test period established by S. 

Res. 28, but would become permanent only if the Senate subsequently adopted a separate resolution, which would be considered 

under expedited parliamentary procedures rather than the regular legislative procedures of the Senate (132 Congressional Record, 

2375–2377). On February 20, the Senate adopted the motion to recommit 81–9, and S. Res. 28, as amended, was re-reported to the 

Senate by Majority Leader Dole (132 Congressional Record 2520).

On February 25, 1986, Senator Armstrong proposed to strike out 

the provision permitting the Senate to vote to impose a germaneness requirement on amendments. The Armstrong amendment was 

agreed to, 60 to 37 (132 Congressional Record 2843).

Negotiations on the fi nal content of S. Res. 28 continued, and on 

February 27, majority leader Dole, on behalf of himself and Senator 

Byrd, proposed a substitute amendment to S. Res. 28. This amendment embodied a further negotiated compromise which established 

gavel-to-gavel television coverage after an initial test period, and a 

post-cloture cap of 30 (rather than 20) hours on consideration of a 

measure or matter. It also amended S. Res. 28 to maintain the vote 

required to invoke cloture established in 1975 of three-fi fths of Senators chosen and sworn, except for Rules changes, which would retain 

the higher threshold of two-thirds present and voting.

The Dole-Byrd leadership package included other Rules change 

provisions, including a reduction of the required layover period for 

committee reports from three days to two days, the ability to waive 

the reading of the Journal by recorded vote, an elimination of the 
224

Committee of the Whole device for the consideration of treaties in 

executive session, and a provision requiring that conference reports 

be available on Senators desks before being considered.

On February 27, 1986, the Senate agreed to the Dole-Byrd compromise amendment, and then to S. Res. 28 itself, as amended, by a 

record vote of 67–21.

As amended by S. Res. 28, paragraph 2 of Rule XXII read as follows:

2. Notwithstanding the provisions of rule II or rule IV or any 

other rule of the Senate, at any time a motion signed by sixteen 

Senators, to bring to a close the debate upon any measure, motion, other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished 

business, is presented to the Senate, the Presiding Offi cer, or 

clerk at the direction of the Presiding Offi cer, shall at once state 

the motion to the Senate, and one hour after the Senate meets 

on the following calendar day but one, he shall lay the motion 

before the Senate and direct that the clerk call the roll, and 

upon the ascertainment that a quorum is present, the Presiding 

Offi cer shall, without debate, submit to the Senate by a yea-andnay vote on the question:

“Is it the sense of the Senate that the debate shall be brought 

to a close?”

And if that question shall be decided in the affi rmative by 

three-fi fths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn—except on a 

measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the 

necessary affi rmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators 

present and voting—then said measure, motion, or other matter 

pending before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, shall be 

the unfi nished business to the exclusion of all other business 

until disposed of.

Thereafter no Senator shall be entitled to speak in all more 

than one hour on the measure, motion, or other matter pending 

before the Senate, or the unfi nished business, the amendments 

there to and motions affecting the same, and it shall be the duty 

of the Presiding Offi cer to keep the time of each Senator who 

speaks. Except by unanimous consent, no amendment shall be 

proposed after the vote to bring the debate to a close, unless it 

had been submitted in writing to the Journal Clerk by 1 o’clock 

p.m. on the day following the fi ling of the cloture motion if an 

amendment in the fi rst degree, and unless it had been so submitted at least one hour prior to the beginning of the cloture 

vote if an amendment in the second degree. No dilatory motion, 

or dilatory amendment, or amendment not germane shall be in 

order. Points of order, including questions of relevancy, and appeals from the decision of the Presiding Offi cer, shall be decided 

without debate.

After no more than thirty hours of consideration of the measure, motion, or other matter on which cloture has been invoked, 

the Senate shall proceed, without any further debate on any 

question, to vote on the fi nal disposition thereof to the exclusion 

of all amendments not then actually pending before the Senate 

at that time and to the exclusion of all motions, except a motion to table, or to reconsider and one quorum call on demand 

to establish the presence of a quorum (and motions required to 

establish a quorum) immediately before the fi nal vote begins. 

The thirty hours may be increased by the adoption of a motion, 

decided without debate, by a three-fi fths affi rmative vote of the 

Senators duly chosen and sworn, and any such time thus agreed 
225

upon shall be equally divided between and controlled by the Majority and Minority Leaders or their designees. However, only 

one motion to extend time, specifi ed above, may be made in any 

one calendar day.

If, for any reason, a measure or matter is reprinted after cloture has been invoked, amendments which were in order prior 

to the reprinting of the measure or matter will continue to be in 

order and may be conformed and reprinted at the request of the 

amendment’s sponsor. The conforming changes must be limited 

to lineation and pagination.

No Senator shall call up more than two amendments until every other Senator shall have had the opportunity to do likewise.

Notwithstanding other provisions of this rule, a Senator may 

yield all or part of his one hour to the majority or minority fl oor 

managers of the measure, motion, or matter or to the Majority 

or Minority Leader, but each Senator specifi ed shall not have 

more than two hours so yielded to him and may in turn yield 

such time to other Senators.

Notwithstanding any other provision of this rule, any Senator 

who has not used or yielded at least ten minutes, is, if he seeks 

recognition, guaranteed up to ten minutes, inclusive, to speak 

only.

After cloture is invoked, the reading of any amendment, including House amendments, shall be dispensed with when the 

proposed amendment has been identifi ed and has been available 

in printed form at the desk of the Members for not less than 

twenty-four hours.

Æ