Filibuster in the United States Senate

From Infogalactic: the planetary knowledge core
Jump to: navigation, search

A filibuster in the United States Senate is a dilatory or obstructive tactic used in the United States Senate to prevent a measure from being brought to a vote. The most common form of filibuster occurs when a senator attempts to delay or block a vote on a bill by extending debate on the measure. The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish, and on any topic they choose, unless "three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn"[1] (usually 60 out of 100) bring the debate to a close by invoking cloture under Senate Rule XXII. The only bills that cannot be filibustered are those few considered under provisions of law that limit time for debating them.[2]

According to the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Ballin (1892), Senate rules can be changed by a simple majority vote. Nevertheless, under current Senate rules, a rule change could itself be filibustered, requiring two-thirds of senators who are present and voting to end debate. (This differs from the usual requirement for three-fifths of sworn senators.)[1]

Despite this two-thirds requirement being written into the Senate rules, any Senator may attempt to nullify a Senate rule by making a point of order that the rule is unconstitutional, or just that the meaning of the rule should not be followed. The presiding officer is generally expected to rule in favor of the rules of the Senate, but any ruling from the chair may be appealed by a simple majority of Senators. This is what happened in 2013, when Harry Reid of the Democratic Party made a point of order that "the vote on cloture under rule XXII for all nominations other than for the Supreme Court of the United States is by majority vote." No such majority vote provision existed in Senate rule XXII.[3] The text of that rule continues to say that such cloture motions require a three-fifths vote, but the 2013 ruling means Senate precedent changed such that cloture on nominations other than those for the Supreme Court requires a simple majority.[1] On April 6, 2017, that precedent was further changed by Mitch McConnell and the Republican majority to include Supreme Court nominations.[4][5]

The concept of the filibuster emerged in the Senate in the 1850s. At the time, both the Senate and the House of Representatives allowed filibusters as a way to prevent a vote from taking place. Subsequent revisions to House rules limited filibuster privileges in that chamber, but the Senate continued to allow the tactic.[6]


Early use of the filibuster

In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing senators to move the previous question, which meant ending debate and proceeding to a vote. But in 1806, former Vice President Aaron Burr argued that the previous-question motion was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[7] The Senate agreed and modified its rules.[7] Because it created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, filibusters became possible.

Until the late 1830s, however, the filibuster remained a solely theoretical option, never actually exercised. The first Senate filibuster occurred in 1837.[8] In 1841, a defining moment came during debate on a bill to charter the Second Bank of the United States. Senator Henry Clay tried to end the debate via majority vote, and Senator William R. King threatened a filibuster, saying that Clay "may make his arrangements at his boarding house for the winter". Other senators sided with King, and Clay backed down.[7]

In practice, narrow majorities could enact legislation by changing the Senate rules, but only on the first day of the session in January or March.[9]

20th century and the emergence of cloture

In 1917, during World War I, a rule allowing cloture of a debate was adopted by the Democratic-majority Senate,[10] at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson,[11] after a group of 12 anti-war senators managed to kill a bill that would have allowed Wilson to arm merchant vessels in the face of unrestricted German submarine warfare.[12] From 1917 to 1949, the requirement for cloture was two-thirds of senators voting.[13] Despite that formal requirement, however, political scientist David Mayhew has argued that in practice, it was unclear whether a filibuster could be sustained against majority opposition.[14]

During the 1930s, Senator Huey Long of Louisiana used the filibuster to promote his populist policies. He recited Shakespeare and read out recipes for "pot-likkers" during his filibusters, which occupied 15 hours of debate.[11]

In 1946, senators John H. Overton (D La.), Richard B. Russell (D Ga.), Senator Millard E. Tydings (D Md.), Clyde R. Hoey (D N.C.), Kenneth McKellar (D Tenn.), blocked a vote on a bill (S. 101) [15] proposed by Democrat Dennis Chávez of New Mexico that would have created a permanent Fair Employment Practice Committee (FEPC) to prevent discrimination in the workplace. The filibuster lasted weeks, and Senator Chávez was forced to remove the bill from consideration after a failed cloture vote, even though he had enough votes to pass the bill. Anticipating more civil rights legislation, the Senate revised its rules in 1949 to permit the invocation of cloture only if two-thirds of the entire Senate membership voted in favor of a cloture motion.[16]

In 1953, Senator Wayne Morse of Oregon set a record by filibustering for 22 hours and 26 minutes while protesting the Tidelands Oil legislation. Senator Strom Thurmond of South Carolina broke this record in 1957 by filibustering the Civil Rights Act of 1957 for 24 hours and 18 minutes,[17] although the bill ultimately passed. In 1959, the Senate restored the cloture threshold to two-thirds of those voting.[16]

One of the most notable filibusters of the 1960s occurred when Southern Democrats attempted to block the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by filibustering for 75 hours, including a 14 hour and 13 minute address by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. The filibuster failed when the Senate invoked cloture for only the second time since 1927.[18]

After a series of filibusters in the 1960s over civil rights legislation, the Senate put a "two-track system" into place in the early 1970s under the leadership of Majority Leader Mike Mansfield and Majority Whip Robert Byrd. Before this system was introduced, a filibuster would stop the Senate from moving on to any other legislative activity. Tracking allows the majority leader—with unanimous consent or the agreement of the minority leader—to have more than one bill pending on the floor as unfinished business. Under the two-track system, the Senate can have two or more pieces of legislation pending on the floor simultaneously by designating specific periods during the day when each one will be considered.[19][20][21][22][23][24]

In 1975, the Democratic-controlled Senate[10] revised the cloture rule so that three-fifths of sworn senators could limit debate, except on votes to change Senate rules, which required a two-thirds majority to invoke cloture.[25][26] The Senate also experimented with a rule that removed the need to speak on the floor in order to filibuster (a "talking filibuster"), thus allowing for "virtual filibusters".[27]

Another tactic, the post-cloture filibuster—which used points of order to delay legislation because they were not counted as part of the limited time allowed for debate—was rendered ineffective by a rule change in 1979.[28][29][30]

21st century

Number of cloture motions filed, voted on, and invoked by the U.S. Senate since 1917.
Cloture voting in the United States Senate since 1917.[31]

In 2005, a group of Republican senators led by Majority Leader Bill Frist floated the idea of having Dick Cheney—who, as vice president, was also president of the Senate—rule that a filibuster on judicial nominees was inconsistent with the constitutional grant of power to the president to name judges with the advice and consent of a simple majority of senators.[32][33] This was a response to the Democrats' threat to filibuster some judicial nominees of President George W. Bush. Senator Trent Lott, the junior senator from Mississippi, used the word "nuclear" to describe the plan, and so it became known as the "nuclear option".[34]

On May 23, 2005, a group of 14 senators—seven Democrats and seven Republicans, collectively dubbed the "Gang of 14"—reached an agreement to defuse the conflict. The seven Democrats promised not to filibuster Bush's nominees except under "extraordinary circumstances", while the seven Republicans promised to oppose the "nuclear option" unless they thought a nominee was being filibustered under non-extraordinary circumstances. Specifically, the Democrats promised to stop filibusters against Priscilla Owen, Janice Rogers Brown, and William H. Pryor, Jr. In return, the Republicans would stop their effort to ban the filibuster for judicial nominees.[35][36][37] This agreement was successful in the short term, but it expired in January 2007, at the end of the second session of the 109th United States Congress.[38]

In the 2007–08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes,[31] and some have used this number to argue that filibusters have become more common. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly used cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of a filibuster. Thus, the presence or absence of cloture attempts is not a reliable indicator of the presence or absence of a filibuster. Because filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.[39]

In December 2009, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-Rhode Island) claimed that there had been more than 100 filibusters and acts of obstruction during the 111th Congress.[40] In March 2010, freshman senator Al Franken (D-Minnesota) attacked the majority of the filibusters—some on matters that later passed with little controversy—as a "perversion of the filibuster".[41] From April to June 2010, the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration held a series of monthly public hearings on the history and use of the filibuster in the Senate.[42]

In response to the use of the filibuster in the 111th Congress, all Democratic senators returning to the 112th Congress signed a petition to Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nevada) requesting that the filibuster be reformed, including abolishing secret holds and reducing the amount of time allotted for post-cloture debate.

Changes in 2013

Negotiations between the two parties resulted in the approval of two packages of amendments to the Senate's filibuster rules on January 25, 2013.[43] Changes to standing orders affecting just the 2013–14 Congress (Senate Resolution 15) were passed by a vote of 78 to 16, allowing Reid, the majority leader, to prohibit a filibuster on a motion to begin consideration of a bill.[43] Changes to the permanent Senate rules (Senate Resolution 16) were passed by a vote of 86 to 9.[43][44]

The changes represented a compromise between the major reforms proposed by some Democratic senators and the smaller changes preferred by Republicans.[45] Those seeking major reform, including Democrats and liberal interest groups, had originally proposed a variety of measures, including ending the filibuster completely; banning the use of filibusters on motions to proceed; re-introducing the "talking filibuster", thus requiring the minority to remain on the Senate floor and speak in order to impede a vote; banning the use of filibusters on House-Senate conferences; and forcing the minority to produce 41 votes in order to block cloture.[46][47] These changes could only have been implemented with a declaration from the Senate's presiding officer that the filibuster was unconstitutional.

The narrower compromise rules removed the requirement of 60 votes in order to begin debate on legislation, and allowed the minority two amendments to measures that reached the Senate floor. This change was implemented as a standing order that expired at the end of the term in which it was passed.[47][48] The new rules also reduced the amount of time allowed for debate after a motion to proceed from 30 hours to four hours. Additionally, they stated that a filibuster on a motion to proceed could be blocked with a petition signed by eight members of the minority, including the minority leader.[48] For district court nominations, the new rules reduced the maximum time between cloture and a confirmation vote from 30 hours to two hours.[48] Finally, if senators wished to block a bill or nominee after the motion to proceed, they had to be present in the Senate and debate.[49][47]

Despite these changes, 60 votes were still required to overcome a filibuster, and the "silent filibuster"—in which a senator can delay a bill even if they leave the floor—remained in place.[49][47]

Following the announcement of the new rules, Senator Dick Durbin (D-Illinois), who was involved in the negotiations, said the compromise was a true agreement between the majority and minority leaders, and was overwhelmingly supported by Senate Democrats.[48] However, it was negatively received by liberal interest groups, including CREDO;[48] Fix the Senate Now, a coalition of approximately 50 progressive and labor organizations; and the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, which had pushed to eliminate the "silent filibuster" on the grounds that it allowed Republicans to block progressive bills.[49] Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, a liberal independent, argued that the 60-vote requirement to pass legislation made it "impossible" to deal with the crises facing the United States.[49] Conservatives also criticized the reforms, arguing that they hurt the minority party. In particular, Heritage Action for America argued that reducing the time allowed for debate would let senior lawmakers "avoid accountability". Senator Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) criticized the new rules for limiting the "ability of senators to offer amendments".[49]

On March 6, 2013, Senator Paul launched a talking filibuster to stall a vote on John O. Brennan's nomination for the position of director of the Central Intelligence Agency.[50] Brennan was considered the main architect of the Obama administration's drone strikes program in the Middle East,[50] and Paul demanded an answer from the administration to the question: "Should a president be allowed to target and kill an American by drone attack on American soil without due process?"[51][52] After 12 hours and 52 minutes of talking, it became the ninth-longest filibuster in U.S. history (a distinction that held until October 2013).[53] However, Paul's filibuster was widely considered a publicity stunt, since Attorney General Eric Holder had answered "no" when the same question was posed by Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas) in a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing hours earlier.[54]

On November 21, 2013, the Senate used the so-called "nuclear option", voting 52–48—with all Republicans and three Democrats voting against—to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except to the Supreme Court. At the time of the vote, there were 59 executive branch nominees and 17 judicial nominees awaiting confirmation.[55]

The Democrats' stated motivation was what they saw as an expansion of filibustering by Republicans during the Obama administration, especially with respect to nominations for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[56][57] Republicans had asserted that the D.C. Circuit was underworked[55] and cited a need to cut costs by reducing the number of judges.[58] Democrats responded that Republicans had not raised these concerns earlier, when President Bush had made nominations to the court, and argued that the size of the court needed to be maintained because of the complexity of the cases it hears.[59][60]

As of November 2013,[needs update] 79 officials nominated by President Barack Obama had received cloture votes, compared with 38 in the eight years of the Bush administration.[61] However, most of the cloture votes on Obama's nominees successfully ended debate, and the nominees cleared the filibuster. Ultimately, Obama won Senate confirmation for 30 out of 42 federal appeals court nominees (71%), compared with Bush's 35 out of 52 (67%).[61][62] As of November 2013, the Senate had also approved 143 out of 173 (83%) of Obama's district court nominees, compared with George W. Bush's 170 of 179 (95%), Bill Clinton's 170 of 198 (86%), and George H. W. Bush's 150 of 195 (77%).[61][63] Filibusters were used to block or delay 20 of Obama's district court nominations—compared with three under all previous U.S. presidents combined[64]—but Republicans ultimately allowed the confirmation of 19 of the 20.[65]

Senate Democrats who supported the "nuclear option" also did so out of frustration with filibusters of executive branch nominees for agencies such as the Federal Housing Finance Agency.[56]


In 2015, Republicans took control of the Senate and kept the 2013 rules in place.[66] Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee) and Mike Lee (R-Utah) proposed ending the use of the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees, while other senators favored the status quo.[67] A third camp favored restoring the filibuster for all nominations.[67] In October 2015, Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Kentucky) convened a task force to consider eliminating filibusters on motions to proceed.[66]

Following the 2016 Orlando nightclub shooting, Senator Chris Murphy (D-Connecticut) launched a filibuster on the Senate floor on June 15, 2016, to push for gun control measures, including universal background checks and legislation that would prohibit firearm sales to suspected terrorists. The Senate was scheduled to vote on H.R. 2578 (the Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2016), but the vote was delayed by the filibuster, which lasted 14 hours and 50 minutes. Murphy was joined on the floor by his fellow Democrats and two Republicans, Ben Sasse and Pat Toomey.[68][69]

On April 6, 2017, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called a vote to end the filibuster, known as the "nuclear option", for Supreme Court nominees so that with a simple majority Judge Neil Gorsuch, President Donald Trump's nominee, can be confirmed to the highest court. The vote to change the rules was 52 to 48 that was along party lines. After the rules change, 55 senators voted to set Gorsuch's confirmation vote for April 7.[70]

Other forms of filibuster

While talking out a measure is the most common form of filibuster in the Senate, other means of delaying and killing legislation are available. Because the Senate routinely conducts business by unanimous consent, one member can create at least some delay by objecting to the request. In some cases, such as considering a bill or resolution on the day it is introduced or brought from the House, the delay can be as long as a day.[71] However, because this is a legislative day, not a calendar day, the majority can mitigate it by briefly adjourning.[72]

In many cases, an objection to a request for unanimous consent will compel a vote. While forcing a single vote may not be an effective delaying tool, the cumulative effect of several votes, which take at least 15 minutes apiece, can be substantial. In addition to objecting to routine requests, senators can force votes through motions to adjourn and through quorum calls. Quorum calls are meant to establish the presence or absence of a constitutional quorum, but senators routinely use them to waste time while waiting for the next speaker to come to the floor or for leaders to negotiate off the floor. In those cases, a senator asks for unanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. If another senator objects, the clerk must continue to call the roll of senators, just as they would with a vote. If a call shows no quorum, the minority can force another vote by moving to request or compel the attendance of absent senators. Finally, senators can force votes by moving to adjourn, or by raising specious points of order and appealing the ruling of the chair.

The most effective methods of delay are those that force the majority to invoke cloture multiple times on the same measure. The most common example is to filibuster the motion to proceed to a bill, then filibuster the bill itself. This forces the majority to go through the entire cloture process twice in a row. If, as is common, the majority seeks to pass a substitute amendment to the bill, a further cloture procedure is needed for the amendment.

The Senate is particularly vulnerable to serial cloture votes when it and the House have passed different versions of the same bill and want to go to conference (i.e., appoint a special committee of both chambers to merge the bills). Normally, the majority asks for unanimous consent to:

  • Insist on its amendment(s), or disagree with the House's amendments
  • Request, or agree to, a conference
  • Authorize the presiding officer to appoint members of the special committee

If the minority objects, those motions are debatable (and therefore subject to a filibuster) and divisible (meaning the minority can force them to be debated, and filibustered, separately).[71] Additionally, after the first two motions pass, but before the third does, senators can offer an unlimited number of motions to give the special committee members non-binding instructions, which are themselves debatable, amendable, and divisible.[73] As a result, a determined minority can cause a great deal of delay before a conference.

Longest filibusters

Below is a table of the ten longest filibusters to take place in the United States Senate since 1900.

Longest filibusters in the U.S. Senate since 1900[74][75]
Senator Date (began) Measure Hours & minutes
011 ThurmondStrom Thurmond (D-SC) August 28, 1957 Civil Rights Act of 1957 24:18
022 DAmatoAlfonse D'Amato (R-NY) October 17, 1986 Defense Authorization Act (1987), amendment 23:30
033 MorseWayne Morse (I-OR) April 24, 1953 Submerged Lands Act (1953) 22:26
044 CruzTed Cruz (R-TX) September 24, 2013 Continuing Appropriations Act (2014) 21:18
055 LaFolletteRobert M. La Follette, Sr. (R-WI) May 29, 1908 Aldrich–Vreeland Act (1908) 18:23
066 ProxmireWilliam Proxmire (D-WI) September 28, 1981 Debt ceiling increase (1981) 16:12
077 LongHuey Long (D-LA) June 12, 1935 National Industrial Recovery Act (1933), amendment 15:30
8 MerkleyJeff Merkley (D-OR) April 4, 2017 Opposition to Neil Gorsuch Supreme Court confirmation 15:28
9 DAmatoAlfonse D'Amato (R-NY) October 5, 1992 Revenue Act (1992), amendment 15:14
1010 MurphyChris Murphy (D-CT) June 15, 2016 Nominally H.R. 2578; supporting gun control measures 14:50

See also


  1. 1.0 1.1 1.2 "Precedence of motions (Rule XXII)". Rules of the Senate. United States Senate. Retrieved January 21, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  2. "Senate Legislative Process". United States Senate. Retrieved February 12, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  3. "Congressional Record: Senate, Nov. 21, 2013" (PDF). Retrieved April 4, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  4. Flegenheimer, Matt (April 6, 2017). "Senate Republicans Deploy 'Nuclear Option' to Clear Path for Gorsuch". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved April 6, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  5. Latimer, Matt (April 6, 2017). "RIP U.S. Senate, 1789-2017". POLITICO Magazine. Retrieved April 6, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  6. "U.S. Senate: Filibuster and Cloture". Retrieved December 13, 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  7. 7.0 7.1 7.2 Gold, Martin (2008). Senate Procedure and Practice (2nd ed.). Rowman & Littlefield. p. 49. ISBN 978-0-7425-6305-6. OCLC 220859622. Retrieved March 3, 2009.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  8. Binder, Sarah (April 22, 2010). "The History of the Filibuster". Brookings. Retrieved June 14, 2012.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  9. Pildes, Rick (December 24, 2009). "The History of the Senate Filibuster". Balkinization. Retrieved March 1, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles> Discussing Wawro, Gregory John; Schickler, Eric (2006). Filibuster: obstruction and lawmaking in the U.S. Senate. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press. p. 19. ISBN 978-0-691-12509-1.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  10. 10.0 10.1 "Party Division in the Senate, 1789 – present". United States Senate. Retrieved February 14, 2007.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  11. 11.0 11.1 "Filibuster and Cloture". United States Senate. Retrieved March 5, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  12. See John F. Kennedy's Profiles in Courage (chapter on George Norris) for a description of the event.
  13. "What is Rule 22?", Rule22 (blog), Word press, May 28, 2011<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  14. Mayhew, David (January 2003). "Supermajority Rule in the US Senate" (PDF). PS: Political Science & Politics: 31, 34.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  16. 16.0 16.1 "Changing the Rule". Filibuster. Washington, DC: CQ-Roll Call Group. 2010. Retrieved June 24, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  17. "Strom Thurmond Biography". Strom Thurmond Institute. Retrieved January 6, 2009.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  18. "Civil Rights Filibuster Ended". Art & History Historical Minutes. United States Senate. Retrieved March 1, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  19. Erlich, Aaron (November 18, 2003). "Whatever Happened to the Old-Fashioned Jimmy Stewart-Style Filibuster?". HNN: George Mason University's History News Network. Retrieved June 30, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  20. Kemp, Jack (November 15, 2004). "Force a real filibuster, if necessary". Townhall. Retrieved March 1, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  21. Brauchli, Christopher (January 8–10, 2010). "A Helpless and Contemptible Body—How the Filibuster Emasculated the Senate". CounterPunch.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  22. Schlesinger, Robert (January 25, 2010). "How the Filibuster Changed and Brought Tyranny of the Minority". Politics & Policy. U.S. News & World Report. Retrieved June 24, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  23. Mariziani, Mimi and Lee, Diana (April 22, 2010). "Testimony of Mimi Marizani & Diana Lee, Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law, Submitted to the U.S. Senate Committee on Rules & Administration for the hearing entitled "Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789–2008"". Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789–2008. United States Senate Committee on Rules & Administration. p. 5. Retrieved June 30, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  24. Note: Senator Robert C. Byrd wrote in 1980 that he and Senator Mike Mansfield instituted the "two-track system" in the early 1970s with the approval and cooperation of Senate Republican leaders while he was serving as Senate Majority Whip. (Byrd, Robert C. (1991). "Party Whips, May 9, 1980". In Wendy Wolff (ed.). The Senate 1789–1989. 2. Washington, D.C.: 100th Congress, 1st Session, S. Con. Res. 18; U.S. Senate Bicentennial Publication; Senate Document 100-20; U.S. Government Printing Office. p. 203. ISBN 9780160063916. Retrieved June 30, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>).
  25. "Resolution to amend Rule XXII of the Standing Rules of the Senate". The Library of Congress. January 14, 1975. Retrieved February 18, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  26. Wawro, Gregory J. (April 22, 2010). "The Filibuster and Filibuster Reform in the U.S. Senate, 1917–1975; Testimony Prepared for the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration". Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789–2008. United States Senate Committee on Rules & Administration. Retrieved July 1, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  27. Understanding the Filibuster: Purpose and History of the Filibuster. No Labels.
  28. Byrd, Robert C. (April 22, 2010). "Statement of U.S. Senator Robert C. Byrd, Senate Committee on Rules and Administration, "Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789–2008."". Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789–2008. United States Senate Committee on Rules & Administration. p. 2. Retrieved July 1, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  29. Bach, Stanley (April 22, 2010). "Statement on Filibusters and Cloture: Hearing before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration". Examining the Filibuster: History of the Filibuster 1789–2008. United States Senate Committee on Rules & Administration. pp. 5–7. Retrieved July 1, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  30. Gold, Martin B. and Gupta, Dimple (Winter 2005). "The Constitutional Option to Change the Senate Rules and Procedures: A Majoritarian Means to Overcome the Filibuster" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 28 (1): 262–64. Retrieved July 1, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  31. 31.0 31.1 "Senate Action on Cloture Motions". United States Senate. Retrieved November 22, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  32. Allen, Mike; Birnbaum, Jeffrey H. (May 18, 2005). "A Likely Script for The 'Nuclear Option'". The Washington Post. ISSN 0190-8286. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  33. Kirkpatrick, David D. (April 23, 2005). "Cheney Backs End of Filibustering". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  34. Safire, William (March 20, 2005). "Nuclear Options". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  35. Lochhead, Carolyn (May 24, 2005). "Senate filibuster showdown averted". San Francisco Chronicle. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  36. "Senators compromise on filibusters". May 24, 2005. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  37. Gerhardt, Michael; Painter, Richard (2011). "'Extraordinary Circumstances': The Legacy of the Gang of 14 and a Proposal for Judicial Nominations Reform" (PDF). American Constitution Society for Law and Policy.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  38. Whelan, Ed (December 7, 2011). "The Halligan Filibuster and the New 'Gang of 14' Mythology – Part 1". National Review. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  39. Beth, Richard; Stanley Bach (December 24, 2014). Filibusters and Cloture in the Senate (PDF). Congressional Research Service. pp. 4, 9.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  40. Hulse, Carl; Herszenhorn, David M. (December 20, 2009). "Senate Debate on Health Care Exacerbates Partisanship". The New York Times. Retrieved February 27, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  41. Birkey, Andy (March 16, 2010). "Franken criticizes GOP 'perversion of the filibuster'". The Minnesota Independent. Retrieved March 16, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  42. "Senate Rules Committee Holds Series of Hearings on the Filibuster". In The News. United States Senate Committee on Rules & Administration. June 9, 2010. Retrieved July 2, 2010.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  43. 43.0 43.1 43.2 Karoun Demirjian (January 24, 2013). "Senate approves modest, not sweeping, changes to the filibuster". Las Vegas Sun. Retrieved January 31, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  44. Rybicki E. (2013). Changes to Senate Procedures in the 113th Congress Affecting the Operation of Cloture (S.Res. 15 and S.Res. 16). Congressional Research Service.
  45. Lengell, Sean; Dinan, Stephen (January 24, 2012). "'Nuclear option' averted as Senate leaders reach agreement on filibuster rules". The Washington Times. Retrieved January 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  46. Graham, David A (January 24, 2013). "How Senate Graybeards Killed Real Filibuster Reform". The Atlantic. Retrieved January 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  47. 47.0 47.1 47.2 47.3 Dwyer, Paula (January 25, 2013). "Reid Was Smart to Drop 'Nuclear Option'". Bloomberg. Retrieved January 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  48. 48.0 48.1 48.2 48.3 48.4 Grim, Ryan; Stein, Sam; Siddiqui, Sabrina (January 24, 2013). "Harry Reid, Mitch McConnell Reach Filibuster Reform Deal". Huffington Post. Retrieved January 30, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  49. 49.0 49.1 49.2 49.3 49.4 Bolton, Alexander (January 24, 2013). "Liberals irate as Senate passes watered-down filibuster reform". The Hill. Retrieved January 31, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  50. 50.0 50.1 Killough, Ashley (March 7, 2013). "Rand Paul's #filiblizzard filibuster". CNN. Retrieved March 7, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  51. Parker, Ashley (March 6, 2013). "Rand Paul Leads Filibuster of Brennan Nomination". The New York Times. Retrieved March 6, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  52. O'Keefe, Ed (March 6, 2013). "Rand Paul launches talking filibuster against John Brennan". The Washington Post. Retrieved March 6, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  53. Camia, Catalina (March 7, 2013). "Rand Paul filibuster ranks among Senate's longest". USA Today. Retrieved March 7, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  54. "Rand Paul Exaggerates His Filibuster 'Victory'". FactCheck. March 26, 2013.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  55. 55.0 55.1 Peters, Jeremy W. (November 21, 2013). "In Landmark Vote, Senate Limits Use of the Filibuster". New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  56. 56.0 56.1 Kathleen Hunter (November 21, 2013). "U.S. Senate changes rules to stop minority from blocking nominations". Concord Monitor.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  57. Jeremy W. Peters (October 31, 2013). "G.O.P. Filibuster of 2 Obama Picks Sets Up Fight". The New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  58. "GOP's existential test: Why they're really escalating a nuclear option crisis".<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  59. Jeremy W. Peters (October 29, 2013). "Between Democrats and a Push for Filibuster Change, One Nominee". New York Times.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  60. Richard Wolf (November 21, 2013). "Senate fights over appeals court key to Obama agenda". USA Today.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  61. 61.0 61.1 61.2 Hook, Janet and Peterson, Kristina. "Senate Adopts New Rules on Filibusters", The Wall Street Journal (November 21, 2013).
  62. "Do Obama Nominees Face Stiffer Senate Opposition?", The Wall Street Journal (November 21, 2013).
  63. McMillion, Barry. "President Obama’s First-Term U.S. Circuit and District Court Nominations: An Analysis and Comparison with Presidents Since Reagan", Congressional Research Service (May 2, 2013).
  64. "Senate Votes For Nuclear Option", The Huffington Post (November 21, 2013).
  65. Kamen, Al. "Filibuster reform may not open confirmation floodgates", The Washington Post (November 22, 2013).
  66. 66.0 66.1 Bolton, Alexander (October 12, 2015). "Senate Republicans open door to weakening the filibuster". The Hill. Retrieved October 12, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  67. 67.0 67.1 Everett, Burgess (January 28, 2015). "SCOTUS filibuster trial balloon goes bust". Politico. Retrieved January 29, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  68. Kim, Seung Min; Everett, Burgess (June 15, 2016). "Democrats end filibuster, announce GOP to hold gun votes". Politico. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  69. Flores, Reena (June 15, 2016). "Senate Dems filibuster over "unconscionable" lack of gun control". CBS News. Retrieved January 23, 2017.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  70. SENATE GOES NUCLEAR: McConnell kills the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees to get Trump's court pick over the top Retrieved April 6, 2017.
  71. 71.0 71.1 Gregg, Senator Judd (December 1, 2009), To Republican Colleagues (Letter), Politico<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  72. 2010 Congressional Record, Vol. 156, Page S1819 to S1821, where a brief adjournment was used for a similar reason.
  73. Riddick's Senate Procedure, "Instruction of Conferees", p. 479.
  74. Cassandra Vinograd (June 16, 2016). "The Longest Filibusters: Where Does Chris Murphy Stack Up?". NBC News. Retrieved June 16, 2016.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>
  75. Fisher, Theresa. "10 Longest Filibusters in Senate History". Van Winkle's. Retrieved November 20, 2015.<templatestyles src="Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css"></templatestyles>