ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CLOTURE RULE

Beginning after the Civil War and continuing until at least 1925, proposals were offered to permit a majority to terminate debate at once by ordering the previous question. Most such plans failed to reach the floor, and the Senate failed to adopt those that did. Instead, when the Senate finally adopted a cloture rule in 1917, it provided not that a simple majority could immediately terminate consideration, but only that a super-majority of two-thirds could limit each Senator to one hour of debate. It also provided that once cloture was invoked, only germane amendments would be in order. Although since amended, this basic mechanism remains in effect today.

From 1917 until 1962, cloture was almost never invoked. During most of this period, Senate norms of conduct discouraged filibusters except for issues of intense personal conviction. Attempts would normally be made to overcome them only by endurance, and cloture sought only after substantial debate. If a cloture attempt failed, supporters would normally desist from pressing the measure; if it succeeded, however, opponents would normally desist from their filibuster. These practices led to the marathon filibusters by debate that remained characteristic of the Senate into the 1960s. One of the few additional restrictions imposed on Senate debate during this period was establishment of the principle that a Senator asking for a quorum call loses the floor, and if re-recognized begins a second speech.

Senator George W. Norris of Nebraska and other proponents of the twentieth amendment expected that abolition of the ``short session'' would eliminate filibusters. Filibusters occurred, however, in both sessions of the first Congress under the new schedule. In more recent years it has seemed that the closer the end of the session, the more effective the tactics of delay. Other interim deadlines (such as the start of the fiscal year) can extend the periods in which dilatory tactics are especially effective.

The 1917 cloture rule applied only to debate on measures, and not to debate on the motion to proceed (still fully debatable). Over the following three decades, some filibusters were directed against the motion to proceed rather than against the measure itself. These filibusters could be overcome only through application of the two speech rule. Revisions to the rule in 1949 and 1959 provided a means to limit consideration of any debatable question. These changes embodied an implicit shift in the basis of Senate procedure, away from Senators' right to debate to a growing emphasis on the body's right to control its proceedings.