{
  "id": "R44709",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "R44709",
  "active": true,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 457594,
      "date": "2016-12-12",
      "retrieved": "2016-12-22T16:32:56.294110",
      "title": "Changing the Senate Cloture Rule at the Start of a New Congress",
      "summary": "From 1953 to 1975, proposals to reform Rule XXII at the start of a new Congress were biennial rituals. They were instigated by Senators in each party frustrated by the chamber\u2019s inability to enact social and civil rights legislation because of the opposition of other Members. The biennial focus declined somewhat when the Senate in 1975 amended Rule XXII to reduce the number of Senators required to invoke cloture from two-thirds of the Senators present and voting to three-fifths of the Senators chosen and sworn (60 of 100). In 1979 and 1986, the Senate also amended Rule XXII by reducing the length of time for post-cloture debate. However, senatorial interest in revising Rule XXII on \u201copening day\u201d reemerged in the 2000s. \nAt the start of three recent Congresses\u2014in 2011, 2013, and 2015\u2014a number of reform-minded Senators unsuccessfully urged the Senate (as the House does on its first day) to adopt its rules by majority vote without having to muster a supermajority vote. Rule XXII mandates that prolonged debate on amendments to Senate rules can be brought to an end by a two-thirds vote of the Senators present and voting\u201467 of 100 Members if all Senators vote, a likely outcome on an issue that affects the institution\u2019s long-standing deliberative character. \nReform-minded Senators have generally viewed the opening of a new Congress as a special constitutional time that permits the Senate to amend its procedures by majority vote unencumbered by chamber rules adopted by a previous Congress. They cite the U.S. Constitution (Article I, Section 5) as their authority: \u201cEach House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,\u201d which implicitly means by majority vote, state the reformers. Opponents reject this assertion and point out that the Senate has adopted rules, and the Constitution says nothing about the vote required to adopt those rules. Moreover, the Senate is a continuing body with continuing rules.\nThis report\u2019s prime purpose is to discuss seven considerations that Senators on either side of the issue might bear in mind if an effort is made at the start of the 115th Congress (2017-2018) to amend Senate rules by majority vote. Seven specific considerations are discussed: the role of the presiding officer, who could be the President of the Senate; the assistance of the majority leader; the mobilization of a determined and united majority; skillful use of procedural moves and countermoves; the length of \u201copening day\u201d; the continuing body doctrine; and procedures to be followed pending approval of new rules. The report concludes with several observations about legislating in the Senate.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": true,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/R44709",
          "sha1": "07998a1aa441f6c12afa2062e51f68945930f6bb",
          "filename": "files/20161212_R44709_07998a1aa441f6c12afa2062e51f68945930f6bb.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/R44709",
          "sha1": "4d0170ef3125dbbe3b25d99c4443a042cc7ff416",
          "filename": "files/20161212_R44709_4d0170ef3125dbbe3b25d99c4443a042cc7ff416.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "American Law",
    "Constitutional Questions"
  ]
}