```

[Congressional Bills 114th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 545 Introduced in House (IH)]

<DOC>

114th CONGRESS
  1st Session
H. RES. 545

Calling for an end to the abuse of the Standing Rules of the Senate and 
    to improve the debate and consideration of legislative matters.

_______________________________________________________________________

                    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                            December 2, 2015

 Mr. Franks of Arizona (for himself, Mr. Aderholt, Mr. Culberson, Mr. 
   Wilson of South Carolina, Mr. Gibbs, Mr. Walberg, Mr. Posey, Mr. 
Mulvaney, Mr. Gosar, Mr. Salmon, Mr. Pitts, Mrs. Blackburn, Mr. Cramer, 
 and Mr. Smith of Texas) submitted the following resolution; which was 
                   referred to the Committee on Rules

_______________________________________________________________________

                               RESOLUTION

 
Calling for an end to the abuse of the Standing Rules of the Senate and 
    to improve the debate and consideration of legislative matters.

Whereas the failure to pass critical, overwhelmingly popular legislation in the 
        United States Senate has resulted from the current Senate cloture rule 
        and the practices of the Senate related to debate;
Whereas supermajority provisions of the Senate cloture rule (paragraphs 2 and 3 
        of rule XXII), commonly known as the Senate filibuster rule, are not 
        contemplated by the United States Constitution;
Whereas the Senate cloture rule and the practices of the Senate related to 
        starting and ending debate have evolved over time, and resulted in the 
        Senate routinely being unable to reach a fair, up or down vote on 
        important matters, even when a majority of the body wishes to do so;
Whereas in the present day, the Senate has become debilitated by its rules, 
        practices, and the operation of cloture;
Whereas nearly all legislation today that cannot obtain unanimous consent faces 
        a multistep procedural process gauntlet, before ever having a chance for 
        a ``real'' up or down vote;
Whereas most significant legislation in the Senate is called up and made pending 
        before the Senate only after cloture is invoked on a ``motion to proceed 
        to consider'' it, and subsequently, another cloture motion must be filed 
        to end debate on the legislation itself, which means most legislation in 
        the Senate is subject to not one, but at least two, filibusters;
Whereas the Senate no longer only filibusters publicly (by ``holding the floor'' 
        in a traditional filibuster), but it also does so, privately, by 
        Senators noticing with their leadership threats to filibuster, which in 
        effect invokes a secret or ``anonymous hold'' out of sight of the 
        American people;
Whereas it has become an increasingly common practice for Senators to place 
        ``anonymous holds'' on important business and threaten to filibuster 
        without being required to physically and openly do so on the Senate 
        floor;
Whereas even if a secret hold is resolved, Senate business can still be further 
        delayed by a single Senator openly objecting to a request to consider 
        business on the Senate floor in addition to other dilatory tactics or 
        subsequent filibuster;
Whereas in the early years of the Senate there was no cloture rule or the 
        concept of an ``anonymous hold'', as it conducted legislative business 
        through serious consideration and accommodation for all Senators, before 
        putting any matter to a vote;
Whereas delaying legislative matters by use of the traditional ``hold the 
        floor''--standing Senate filibuster--and other dilatory tactics--were 
        not routinely used during the early years, but eventually became common 
        features used by Senators to delay or prevent a vote on consequential 
        legislation;
Whereas in 1917, after a long series of deliberations in the Senate by a group 
        of Senators that killed a bill that would have allowed President Woodrow 
        Wilson to defend against German submarine warfare, in the period leading 
        up to United States involvement in World War I, the Democrat-controlled 
        Senate adopted the ``Martin Resolution'', the original cloture rule 
        (paragraph 2 of rule XXII), permitting two-thirds of Senators voting 
        (with a quorum present) to bring debate to a close and proceed to a 
        vote;
Whereas in the lead-up to the establishment of the rule in 1917, President 
        Woodrow Wilson responded and in his statement said, ``. . . 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);
Whereas from 1917-1963, totaling a span of 46 years, the Senate managed to 
        invoke cloture on only five occasions, consequently during such time the 
        Senate filibuster and cloture rules were used to prevent the Senate from 
        passing critical bills that pertained to civil rights, such as 
        prohibiting lynching and poll taxes;
Whereas in 1946, the Senate failed to invoke cloture to abolish the poll tax--
        which maliciously required a tax to be paid in order to vote--when a 
        large group of Senate Democrats (26), joined by 7 Senate Republicans, 
        opposed ending debate;
Whereas if the cloture rule had a threshold of simple majority for those 
        Senators voting and present, the 1946 bill to end the poll tax would 
        have been considered for a vote;
Whereas in 1922, 1935, and 1938, the Senate filibuster was used by a group of 
        Southern Senators to defeat anti-lynching bills that centered on 
        stopping horrific extrajudicial executions;
Whereas in 1949, the Democrat-controlled Senate revised the cloture rule, 
        allowing the Senate to invoke cloture on any measure or motion only if 
        two-thirds of Senators chosen and sworn voted in favor;
Whereas the 1949 amendment meant that \2/3\ or 64 Senators affirming would be 
        required to invoke cloture, since there were a total of 96 Senators;
Whereas while filibustering to deny rights to minority groups, Southern Democrat 
        Senators used the Senate filibuster, arguing that it was a tool to 
        protect minority rights;
Whereas in 1959, the Democrat Majority Leader, Senator Lyndon B. Johnson of 
        Texas, sponsored an amendment to paragraphs 2 and 3 of rule XXII that 
        reimplemented the requirement for two-thirds of Senators voting (with a 
        quorum present) to close debate;
Whereas in 1975, the Democrat-controlled Senate adopted the current cloture 
        threshold, lowering the \2/3\ vote to a \3/5\ vote of the full Senate, 
        normally 60, to end debate;
Whereas in 1976, the Democrat-controlled Senate amended the second sentence of 
        the final paragraph of section 2 of rule XXII that regulated post-
        cloture consideration of amendments;
Whereas in 1979, the Democrat Majority Leader, Robert C. Byrd, secured adoption 
        of an amendment to paragraph 2 of Senate rule XXII that further 
        regulated post-cloture consideration of matters;
Whereas in 1986, for the first time, the Republican-controlled Senate adopted a 
        resolution to govern the public broadcast of the chamber floor 
        proceedings that reduced the time permitted for post cloture 
        consideration of a measure or matter from 100 hours to 30 hours;
Whereas in the 113th Congress, the Democratic-controlled Senate used the so-
        called ``nuclear option'', voting 52-48, with all Republicans and 3 
        Democrats voting against, to reinterpret Senate rule XXII to provide for 
        majority cloture on executive branch and judicial nominees other than to 
        the Supreme Court;
Whereas the 1917 cloture rule adoption, its amendments in 1949, 1959, 1975, and 
        the new precedent, ``the nuclear option'' in 2013, were engineered by 
        Senate Democrats when they held the Senate majority;
Whereas in the 114th Congress, the failure to invoke cloture and the Senate's 
        informal practice related to debate have stalemated the legislative 
        process, tabling the consideration of critical issues affecting the 
        constitutional and national security of the Nation;
Whereas this year the failure to invoke cloture has delayed measures in the 
        Senate from reaching a fair, up or down vote on matters of economic 
        development and job growth, securing the United States border, 
        protecting innocent life, national security bills, and the most 
        important national security issue of our time, the Iranian Nuclear Deal;
Whereas if the cloture rule had a threshold of a simple majority to start or end 
        debate--51 votes of the total Senate--for those Senators duly sworn and 
        chosen, legislation of the 114th Congress that passed the House of 
        Representatives, which is supported by a majority of Congress and an 
        overwhelming majority of the American people, would have reached a final 
        vote in the Senate;
Whereas the American people are largely unaware of the esoteric practice of 
        requiring the supermajority to allow a vote and therefore are unable to 
        ascertain which parties or individuals are responsible for the actions 
        or inactions of the Senate and consequently accountability becomes 
        dramatically reduced;
Whereas the Senate's cloture rule and practices related to debate have been the 
        culpable restraints on any significant actions by this Congress even 
        when the majority wishes to act;
Whereas the overall effect of the required supermajority for cloture is to 
        shield from voter accountability actions or inactions in both the 
        legislative and executive branches of Government;
Whereas the original intent of the adoption of the cloture rule in 1917 was to 
        prevent unreasonable delay, today it is used to actually create extended 
        or permanent delay; this violates the historical and original intent for 
        the rule and in fact exacerbates the very problem it was originally 
        intended to address; and
Whereas the current cloture rule and the Senate's informal and formal practices 
        related to debate have ultimately subordinated the Constitution of the 
        United States itself: Now, therefore, be it
    Resolved, That--
            (1) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
        the Standing Rules of the Senate and debate practices should 
        not be abused for the purpose of debilitating the Senate and 
        indefinitely blocking debate or a fair, up or down vote on 
        legislative matters;
            (2) the House of Representatives urges the Senate to adopt 
        a new precedent that would end the abuse of the Standing Rules 
        of the Senate and arduous practices related to debate in order 
        to restore the daily workings of the Senate, in keeping with 
        accountable debate such as the classic standing and talking 
        filibuster;
            (3) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
        after the Senate sets a new precedent to restore its workings, 
        the Senate should negotiate and adopt, under its existing rules 
        of a supermajority vote to invoke cloture, a parliamentarian 
        procedure to replace the cloture motion to call up legislation 
        and make it pending before the Senate, with a ``non debatable 
        motion to proceed to consider'' that allows for the minority to 
        offer a reasonable number of germane amendments, subject to 
        debate, once the measure is pending for consideration;
            (4) the House of Representatives further encourages the 
        Senate to forbid threats of a filibuster derived from an 
        ``anonymous hold'', and in its place reinvigorate the 
        ``traditional standing filibuster'' or ``hold the floor'' 
        mechanism of dissent, with a time allocation of up to 100 hours 
        and the ability to truncate debate only by a petition of 60 
        Senators;
            (5) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
        the proposed number of germane amendments and debate hours and 
        mechanism to truncate debate described in paragraphs (3) and 
        (4), respectively, could be decreased or increased at the time 
        that the rule change is negotiated and adopted, ensuring the 
        appropriate center between sufficient adversarial debate and 
        the prevention of chronic stalemate is both a Senate majority 
        and minority determination;
            (6) the House of Representatives believes that these 
        proposed changes to the Standing Rules of the Senate and debate 
        practices shall--
                    (A) reestablish deliberation in the world's most 
                deliberative body, as intended by the United States of 
                America's founding fathers;
                    (B) allow the Senate to meet its constitutional 
                responsibilities in a timely fashion and effectively 
                respond to national needs;
                    (C) enhance our democratic system and the attending 
                processes that clearly, specifically and accurately 
                assign official actions of representatives and parties 
                accordingly so that accountability is clearly 
                delineated; and
                    (D) encompasses a strong incentive to reach 
                consensus in the Senate and still preserve the 
                minority's opportunity to have enhanced objection and 
                reasonable leverage against any overreach on the part 
                of the majority or if the minority feels further debate 
                and clarity on a given agenda item is particularly 
                important to the country; and
            (7) it is the sense of the House of Representatives that 
        nothing in this resolution--
                    (A) shall be construed as the House of 
                Representatives advocating a wholesale abolishment of a 
                Senate filibuster mechanism or supermajority cloture 
                requirement; or
                    (B) shall be construed as the House of 
                Representatives calling for the classic standing and 
                talking Senate filibuster to be abolished; on the 
                contrary, the House believes it should be 
                reinvigorated.
                                 <all>
```