History of Senate Cloture.....

I know I've written about this before but the archives aren't working still and it bears repeating with what is going on in Washington, especially with Cheney stating he supports a change in the Cloture Rules.....

From the Senate's own history website....please read it carefully....

Using the filibuster to delay debate or block legislation has a long history. In the United States, the term filibuster -- from a Dutch word meaning "pirate" -- became popular in the 1850s when it was applied to efforts to hold the Senate floor in order to prevent action on a bill.

In the early years of Congress, representatives as well as senators could use the filibuster technique. As the House grew in numbers, however, it was necessary to revise House rules to limit debate. In the smaller Senate, unlimited debate continued since senators believed any member should have the right to speak as long as necessary.

In 1841, when the Democratic minority hoped to block a bank bill promoted by Henry Clay, Clay threatened to change Senate rules to allow the majority to close debate. Thomas Hart Benton angrily rebuked his colleague, accusing Clay of trying to stifle the Senate's right to unlimited debate. Unlimited debate remained in place in the Senate until 1917. At that time, at the suggestion of President Woodrow Wilson, the Senate adopted a rule (Rule 22) that allowed the Senate to end a debate with a two-thirds majority vote -- a tactic known as "cloture."

The new Senate rule was put to the test in 1919, when the Senate invoked cloture to end a filibuster against the Treaty of Versailles. Despite the new cloture rule, however, filibusters continued to be an effective means to block legislation, due in part to the fact that a two-thirds majority vote is difficult to obtain. Over the next several decades, the Senate tried numerous times to evoke cloture, but failed to gain the necessary two-thirds vote. Filibusters were particularly useful to southern senators blocking civil rights legislation in the 1950s and 1960s. In 1975, the Senate reduced the number of votes required for cloture from two-thirds (67) to three-fifths (60) of the 100-member Senate.

Cloture has existed for a reason, and it was made even easier in 1975...now they basically want to make sure that Cloture is easy.....

Let's flash back to 1975 and read about our President at the time and Cloture....

Flashback to 1975

The President: I have asked Nelson Rockefeller, because of the controversy surrounding Rule 22, to explain the rulings and the atmosphere in the Senate during this time. I might add that Rocky handled himself brilliantly and that the publicity stemmed from a basic misunderstanding of the role of the Vice President in the Senate on Rule 22. (Note Attached Chart at TAB A.)

The Vice President: On January 10th I asked the President how he wanted Rule 22 handled. The President decided that as the presiding officer of the Senate, it was the Vice President's responsibility and that I should handle it as I saw fit. As you can see by the chart, there are essentially two strategies referred to as the Northern and Southern route. Vice President Nixon gave the opinion that the Northern route was possible and during his tenure as Vice President, there were several minor attempts to have that done. However, in each instance the Senate ultimately went South. In 1967 Humphrey established the precedent of allowing the Senate to change its rules by 60% vote or majority vote, but he was overruled by Senate vote. That did establish precedent. As we approached this Senate year, the members were divided about equally and this didn't allow the leadership of the Senate to take a very strong position.

Mondale put two motions in one during this period, which is incorrect and that was disallowed. Then Senator Allen put three motions in one, which was also disallowed, Senator Byrd and Senator Griffin finally agreed on the wording of the motion, but Mansfield objected. He objected more to the wording of the motion, but he did want a 60-40 split on the vote. However, he wanted the Senate to go the Southern route. (Note Attached Statement at TAB B.) When it became apparent that the majority had the votes that it needed to choose the direction in which they wanted to move, Senator Byrd made an impassioned speech about the disastrous effect of the change where there is simple majority rule. Finally, there was a vote. The vote was 51-42. The first time in Senate history, where the Senate had voted to change the rules by majority rule. At this time the President had gone to Florida and I decided to crystallize the issue while the President was still out of town. As we move through these series of steps outlined on the chart, alternating between the Northern and Southern routes and various motions, we reached a point were I asked for the clerk to call the role. Senator Allen objected and raised a point of parliamentary inquiry. The Vice President again then asked for the role to be called; and again Senator Allen raised the point of question of parliamentary inquiry and again I asked for the role to be called.

This is where the controversy really became a public feud. The senators at that point gave me a very bad time. But according to Rule 19 in the Senate, on a point of parliamentary inquiry, the Chair is allowed, at his discretion, to recognize or not recognize the Senator. At any rate, we finally reached an agreement. There was a two hour recess during which a compromise was worked out and the final agreement was the Southern route, which is the way the majority wanted to go. Everyone was happy, the conservatives, the liberals, the Republicans, and the Democrats have all generally turned out to be fairly happy about it. I have arranged a series of small dinners with various members of the Senate to make certain that there are no hard feeling over it. The important thing to understand is that it was not the discretion of the Chair or the rulings by the Chair that were critical in this, because as presiding officer of the Senate, I always referred the motions and the rulings to the floor of the Senate for their decision. The important element was the lack of recognition by the Senators that the minority had eroded and the majority had changed substantially and as a result, there was a greater difference in Senate response than had ever been before.

I might add, Mr. President, that I am grateful for the support that you gave me during this period both publicly and privately. I appreciate it and I believe and hope that I did what you wanted. The net result of the discussion of the Senate and the ruling of the Senate is now that 60% rules the Senate--that is 60% of the Constitutional membership. We avoided all precedents and went the route that most people wanted in the Senate and I believe that everyone is happy.

No filibusters before on Judges? I think not....

I'd also suggest checking out the above link...and be amazed at which party was the one blocking the Supreme Court nominee....

Here is the exact quote from Rule 22....again from Senate's own rules

"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 affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Sure my math is shaky but...2/3rds is 67.....


We need to know our history, if we don't? We might actually buy some of the bs that is being spred by not only our President and our Vice President, but some of the Congress as well.

Be armed with knowledge....it is our best defense....