What is the difference between cloture and filibuster

Senators often speak about their principled support for the filibuster. There would likely need to be a specific measure that majority party senators both agreed upon and cared enough about to make banning the filibuster worth it. In addition, individual senators may find the filibuster useful to their own personal power and policy goals, as it allows them to take measures hostage with the hopes of securing concessions.

For majority party leaders, meanwhile, the need to secure 60 votes to end debate helps them to shift blame to the minority party for inaction on issues that are popular with some, but not all, elements of their own party.

Finally, senators may be concerned about the future; in an era of frequent shifts in control of the chamber, legislators may worry that a rule change now will put them at a disadvantage in the near future. Russell Wheeler explains the contemporary proposals to alter the size and structure of the Supreme Court.

Darrell West explains the different vote-by-mail systems and addresses fears over the political consequences of mail voting and potential for fraud. Should we believe him? Voter Vitals Non-partisan, fact-based explainers on important issues for American voters.

Multimedia Videos and podcasts on key election issues. About Policy For Media. Stay Informed Sign up to get Policy updates in your inbox:. Facebook Twitter Instagram. Voter Vitals. The Vitals. The Senate has a number of options for curtailing the use of the filibuster, including by setting a new precedent, changing the rule itself, or placing restrictions on its use.

Use of the Senate cloture rule has become far more common in the 21st century. More cloture motions have been filed in the last two decades than in the 80 years prior.

A Closer Look. Where did the filibuster come from? How has the use of the filibuster changed over time? How does the Senate get around the filibuster now? How would eliminating the filibuster actually work? What are some ways to modify the filibuster without eliminating it entirely?

Click here to follow election results! Filibuster is a term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by speaking at length on a proposal, introducing multiple procedural motions, or engaging in other obstructive actions. In short, a filibuster occurs when debate is extended, allowing one or more senators to delay or entirely prevent a vote on a given proposal.

A filibuster can be used as a technical tool to prevent an actual vote or action from proceeding. Though the earliest use of filibusters required a senator to hold and keep the floor through an extended period of speaking, the aim of filibusters - extending debate indefinitely - could later be attained without the need to hold the floor.

Under the Senate's two-track system, which was adopted in the s, any one senator can filibuster one action while the Senate continues to proceed on other business. Sometimes referred to as a silent or stealth filibuster, this method was designed to keep Senate business moving, but it has also increased the number of filibusters used. Senators can simply threaten to use a filibuster and the effect is the same, but without any of the political costs in being seen as delaying action on Senate business by speaking for an extended period on the floor of the Senate.

The Senate operates on the principle of unlimited debate. Senate rules allow any member or group of senators to speak as long as they feel is necessary on an issue.

This, in theory, would allow debate on an issue to continue indefinitely. To prevent this, Senate rules allow for the invocation of cloture. Cloture is a motion that closes debate on an issue and proceeds to a vote.

It takes 60 votes in the Senate to invoke cloture, which ends a filibuster. Without the 60 votes needed for cloture, a filibuster can go on indefinitely, effectively blocking a vote on a proposal. According to the Congressional Research Service , "[F]ilibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.

It is also a matter of degree; filibusters may be conducted with greater or lesser determination and persistence. It is not easy to label and identify filibusters in a strict manner, precisely because a filibuster need not be the standard depiction of a public official standing at a podium and talking endlessly.

This makes comparing the number of filibusters to happen by decade somewhat of a complicated matter. The U. House of Representatives does not use filibusters. In the lower chamber, a simple majority can end debate on a proposal. The filibuster is a means by which to extent debate, and subsequently prevent a vote, on matters before a legislative body.

In the U. Senate , the filibuster is used in one of three contexts. A legislative filibuster is used to prevent a vote on issues on the legislative calendar, such as proposed legislation, while an executive fiilbuster and a judicial filibuster are used to forestall a chamber vote on nominations to fill vacancies in those respective branches of government.

In an April 4, , press conference, McConnell said, "who would be the biggest beneficiary of that right now? It would be the majority, right? Not one. Our country needs a good 'shutdown' in September to fix mess! We're not going to do that. The term filibuster comes from a Dutch word vrijbuiter, according to the Senate Historical Office. This word was later adopted into French flibustier , English fleebooter , and Spanish filibustero.

The word translates as freebooter or, simply, pirate. The word was originally used to describe someone who stole booty, loot, or treasure. According to National Public Radio, the first instance of a legislator personally being called a filibuster as a means of accusing the legislator of being an obstructionist was in ; the first use of filibuster to describe a delay tactic on legislation was in Article I of the United States Constitution describes the powers of the legislative branch.

Article I, Section 5 states that "each House may determine the rules of its proceedings. The rules allowed for a simple majority to call for a vote without further debate on the previous question, but no rule prevented a member of either the House or Senate to speak without end.

To do so, however, was considered unseemly. Thomas Jefferson, in his manual of parliamentary practice for the Senate which he composed during his time as vice president, required under Section 17, Rule 9, that "[n]o one is to speak impertinently or beside the question, superfluously or tediously. Though the original rules of the Senate allowed a simple majority of legislators to make a motion to end debate, in , Vice President Aaron Burr urged the Senate to eliminate this rule.

In , the Senate amended its rules to allow for unlimited debate. According to Brookings Institution senior fellow Sarah A. Binder, "Deletion of the rule made possible the filibuster because the Senate no longer had a rule that could have empowered a simple majority to cut off debate. It took several decades until the minority exploited the lax limits on debate, leading to the first real-live filibuster in Yglesias noted that "the unlimited-debate rule eventually became so cumbersome that senators made attempts at reform in Supreme Court held in United States v.

Ballin that, as a parliamentary body, the Senate was free to amend its procedural rules by simple majority; however, a rule change could be prevented by a filibuster in the Senate. They note [12]. At the outset of American involvement in World War I, Democrats had initiated an organized series of filibusters against a bill to arm American ships against German submarines at the end of the Senate session — more or less guaranteeing the bill would not pass.

A furious President Woodrow Wilson referred publicly to these senators as a 'little group of willful men,' and a 'wave of indignation at their action It was then that '[p]ublic pressure to change the rules of the Senate was probably greater than at any other time in Senate history. As a result of these actions, the Senate amended its rules to allow debate to be shut off by a two-thirds vote of those senators present to vote.

This process is known as cloture. The two-thirds requirement was in effect from until The cloture rule provided little deterrent during this period. From the 65th to the 81st United States Congress, that is from , there were 21 motions to invoke cloture in the Senate; in only four instances was cloture invoked.

Those motions that passed are listed below. In , the Senate modified its rules to require a two-thirds vote of the entire chamber to invoke cloture. Ten years later, in , the Senate returned to its previous rule of requiring a two-thirds vote of those present to vote. In , during debate over what became the Civil Rights Act, southern Democrats filibustered for over 75 hours in an attempt to prevent the bill's passage. The first was to force cloture votes on filibuster threats; the second was to implement a two-track system.

This system, instituted in , provided senators the option to filibuster while the chamber considers other legislation. Under cloture, as well, the only amendments Senators can offer are ones that are germane and were submitted in writing before the cloture vote took place.

Finally, the presiding officer also enjoys certain additional powers under cloture such as, for example, the power to count to determine whether a quorum is present and to rule amendments, motions, and other actions out of order on the grounds that they are dilatory.

The ability of Senators to engage in filibusters has a profound and pervasive effect on how the Senate conducts its business on the floor. In the face of a threatened filibuster, for example, the majority leader may decide not to call a bill up for floor consideration or may defer calling it up if there are other, equally important bills the Senate can consider and pass with less delay. This report concentrates on the operation of cloture under the general provisions of Senate Rule XXII, paragraph 2, though it also identifies key modifications to its application in recent years.

This report will be updated as events warrant. The filibuster is widely viewed as one of the Senate's most characteristic procedural features. The possibility of filibusters exists because Senate rules place few limits on Senators' rights and opportunities in the legislative process. Most bills, indeed, are potentially subject to at least two filibusters before the Senate votes on final passage: first, a filibuster on a motion to proceed to the bill's consideration and, second, after the Senate agrees to this motion, a filibuster on the bill itself.

Senate Rule XXII, however, known as the cloture rule , enables Senators to end a filibuster on any debatable matter the Senate is considering. Invoking cloture on a proposal to amend the Senate's standing rules requires the support of two-thirds of the Senators present and voting, whereas cloture on nominations requires a numerical majority. Similarly, the prospect of a filibuster can persuade a bill's proponents to accept changes in the bill that they do not support but that are necessary to prevent an actual filibuster.

The filibuster is widely viewed as one of the Senate's most distinctive procedural features. Today, the term is most often used to refer to Senators holding the floor in extended debate. More generally, however, filibustering includes any tactics aimed at blocking a measure by preventing it from coming to a vote.

As a consequence, the Senate has no specific rules for filibustering. Instead, possibilities for filibustering exist because Senate rules lack provisions that would place specific limits on Senators' rights and opportunities in the legislative process. In particular, those rules establish no generally applicable limits on the length of debate, nor any motions by which a majority could vote to bring a debate to an end, or even limit it.

The only Senate rule that permits the body, by vote, to bring consideration of a matter to an end is paragraph 2 of Rule XXII, known as the cloture rule. In general, invoking cloture requires a super-majority vote usually 60 out of Senators and, in such cases, doing so does not terminate consideration but only imposes a time limit. Cloture also imposes restrictions on certain other procedures that potentially could be used to dilatory effect.

In recent years, as a result, cloture has increasingly been used to overcome filibusters being conducted not only by debate, but through various other delaying tactics. This report discusses major aspects of Senate procedure related to filibusters and cloture. The two, however, are not always as closely linked in practice as they are in popular conception. Even when opponents of a measure resort to extended debate or other tactics of delay, supporters may not decide to seek cloture although this situation seems to have been more common in earlier decades than today.

In recent times, by contrast, Senate leadership has increasingly made use of cloture as a normal tool for managing the flow of business on the floor, even when no evident filibuster has yet occurred. It would be erroneous to assume the presence or absence of cloture attempts is a reliable guide to the presence or absence of filibusters. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment.

It is also a matter of degree; filibusters may be conducted with greater or lesser determination and persistence. For all these reasons, it is not feasible to construct a definitive list of filibusters.

The following discussion focuses chiefly on the conduct of filibusters through extended debate and on cloture as a means of overcoming them.

The report does not encompass all possible contingencies or consider every relevant precedent, though it identifies key modifications to the rule and its application in recent years.

Authoritative information on cloture procedure can be found under that heading in Riddick ' s Senate Procedure. When a Senator desires to speak, he shall rise and address the Presiding Officer, and shall not proceed until he is recognized, and the Presiding Officer shall recognize the Senator who shall first address him. No Senator shall interrupt another Senator in debate without his consent, and to obtain such consent he shall first address the Presiding Officer, and no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.

This is essentially all the Senate's rules have to say about the right to speak on the floor, so the rule is just as important for what it does not say as for what it does say. The lack of discretion by the chair in recognizing Senators and the lack of time limits on debate combine to create the possibility of filibusters by debate.

Rule XIX affords the presiding officer no choice and no discretion in recognition. As a general rule, if a Senator seeks recognition when no other Senator has the floor, the presiding officer must recognize him or her. The presiding officer may not decline to recognize the Senator, whether for reasons of personal preference or partisan advantage, or to enable the Senate to reach a vote on the pending matter. As a result, when the Senate is considering any debatable question, it cannot vote on the question so long as any Senator wants to be recognized to debate it.

If more than one Senator seeks recognition, Rule XIX directs the presiding officer to recognize whichever Senator is the first to do so. The result is that, although no Senator can be sure that he or she will be recognized promptly for debate on a pending question, each can be sure of recognition eventually.

As Senate rules provide for no motions that could have the effect of terminating debate, a Senator can do nothing while she or he has the floor that would preclude another Senator from being recognized afterwards.

The motions to table and time agreements by unanimous consent, both of which represent partial exceptions to this statement, are discussed later. By well-established precedent and practice, the Senate does not comply strictly with the requirement that the first Senator addressing the chair be recognized. In practice, the party leaders receive preference in recognition. All Senators accept that the majority leader and then the minority leader must be able to secure recognition if they are to do some of the things the Senate expects them to do, such as arrange the daily agenda and weekly schedule and make motions and propound unanimous consent agreements necessary for the relatively orderly conduct of business on the floor.

Accordingly, if two Senators are seeking recognition at more or less the same time and one of them is a party floor leader, the presiding officer recognizes the leader and the majority leader in preference to the minority leader. Next after these two leaders, the presiding officer generally affords preference in recognition to the majority and minority floor managers of legislation being debated.

These Senators receive this preference because they also bear responsibilities for ensuring an orderly process of considering a measure. Under Rule XIX, unless any special limits on debate are in effect, Senators who have been recognized may speak for as long as they wish. There are some exceptions: for example, Senators can lose the floor if they violate the Senate's standards of decorum in debate or, as discussed later, may be interrupted for the presentation of a cloture motion. Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question.

It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that "no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.

A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day. In relation to legislative business, the "day" during which a Senator can make no more than two speeches on the same question is not a calendar day but a legislative day. A legislative day ends only with an adjournment, so that, whenever the Senate recesses overnight, rather than adjourning, the same legislative day continues into the next calendar day.

A legislative day may therefore extend over several calendar days. The leadership may continue to recess the Senate, rather than adjourning, as a means of attempting to overcome a filibuster by compelling filibustering Senators to exhaust their opportunities of gaining recognition. In relation to executive business nominations and treaties , however, the legislative day does not apply and each Senator may, for example, make two speeches on each pending nomination on each calendar day on which the Senate meets.

Senators rarely invoke the two-speech rule. Sometimes, however, they may insist the two-speech rule be enforced as a means of attempting to overcome a filibuster. On such occasions, nevertheless, Senators often can circumvent the two-speech rule by making a motion or offering an amendment that constitutes a new and different debatable question.

For example, each Senator can make two speeches in the same legislative day on each bill, each offered first-degree amendment to a bill, and each second-degree amendment offered to each of those amendments as well. In recent practice, the Senate has considered being recognized and engaging in debate to constitute a speech. The Senate, however, does not consider "that recognition for any purpose [constitutes] a speech. There is one way in which the Senate can end debate on a question even though there may be Senators who still might want to speak on it.

During the debate, it is normally possible for a Senator to move to table the pending question more formally, to lay the question on the table. The motion is not debatable, and its adoption requires only a simple majority vote. In the Senate, to table something is to kill it. So when the Senate votes to table a matter, it thereby disposes of the matter permanently and adversely. The Senate sometimes disposes of amendments by voting to table them rather than by taking what often are called up or down votes to agree or not agree to the amendment itself.

If there is a unanimous consent agreement in effect that limits the time for debate, the motion to table may not be offered until the time is consumed. To offer the motion, a Senator must first be recognized; another Senator who has already been recognized may not be interrupted for a motion to table, no matter how long he or she has been speaking. Within these limitations, if a majority of Senators oppose a matter, the motion to table may enable them to prevail at a time of their choosing.

By this means, Senators can prevent a debate from continuing indefinitely if they are prepared to reject the amendment, motion, or bill that is being debated. If, by contrast, opponents of a matter do not command enough support to table it, they may decide to extend the debate by conducting what supporters of the matter might well characterize as a filibuster.

The motion to table, however, offers no means for supporters of a matter to overcome a filibuster being conducted against it through the threat of extended debate. If the Senate agrees to a motion to table, the debate is brought to an end, but at the cost of defeating the matter. If the Senate votes against the tabling motion, the matter remains before the Senate and Senators can resume debating it at length.

Instead, for purposes of overcoming filibusters, the chief use of the motion to table arises when the filibuster is being conducted through the offering of potentially dilatory amendments and motions. For example, supporters of a filibuster may offer an amendment to renew their right to recognition under the two-speech rule. Each time the Senate tables such an amendment, it can continue debate on the underlying bill, or at least can go on to consider other amendments. Conducting a filibuster by extended debate is potentially straightforward, although it can be physically demanding.

A Senator seeks recognition and, once recognized, speaks at length. When that first Senator concludes and yields the floor, another Senator seeks recognition and continues the debate. Even if the Senate continues in the same legislative day, the debate can proceed in this way until all the participating Senators have made their two speeches on the pending question.

Then, it usually is possible to offer an amendment, or make some other motion, to create a new debatable question on which the same Senators can each make two more speeches. There is no need for the participating Senators to monopolize the debate. What is important is that someone speak, not that it be someone on a given side of the question. Although one purpose of a filibuster is to try to change the minds of Senators who support the question being debated, the purpose of delay is served by any Senator speaking or being available to initiate procedural actions regardless of which side of the question he or she takes.

More often than not, there is no need for the debate to be germane to the question being considered, with one important exception. Paragraph 1 b of Rule XIX 5 requires that debate be germane each calendar day during the first three hours after the Senate begins to consider its unfinished or pending legislative business.

The time consumed by the majority and minority leaders and any speeches during "routine morning business" at the beginning of a daily session is not included in this three-hour period. The Senate can waive this germaneness requirement by unanimous consent or by agreeing to a non-debatable motion for that purpose.

Like the two-speech rule, this germaneness requirement usually is not enforced. During filibusters, however, Senators may be called upon to comply with this requirement on debate when it is in effect. In practice, this does not put much extra burden on participating Senators because speeches made during filibusters are likely to be germane. A Senator who has the floor for purposes of debate must remain standing and must speak more or less continuously.

However, Senators must be careful when they try to give some relief to their colleagues who are speaking. Senate precedents prohibit Senators from yielding the floor to each other. If a Senator simply yields to a colleague, the chair may hold that the Senator has relinquished the floor.

This is another Senate procedure that often is not observed during the normal conduct of business on the floor. However, during a filibuster involving extended floor debate, Senators are much more likely to insist on it being observed. A Senator may yield to a colleague without losing the floor only if the Senator yields for a question. The Senator who retains control of the floor must remain standing while the question is being asked.

The peculiar advantage of this tactic is that it sometimes takes Senators quite some time to ask their question, and the presiding officer is reluctant to force them to state their question before they are ready to do so. In this way, participating Senators can extend the debate through an exchange of what sometimes are long questions followed by short answers, rather than by relying exclusively on a series of long, uninterrupted speeches.

There are ways other than extended debate by which Senators can delay and sometimes even prevent the Senate from voting on a question it is considering. In particular, quorum calls can be demanded for purposes other than confirming or securing the presence of a quorum, such as to consume time.

A Senator who has been recognized can "suggest the absence of a quorum," asking in effect whether the Senate is complying with the constitutional requirement that a quorum—a majority of all Senators—be present for the Senate to conduct business. A quorum is rarely present, and the presiding officer normally does not have the authority to count to determine whether a quorum actually is present; he or she therefore directs the clerk to call the roll.

Senators usually use quorum calls to suspend the Senate's floor proceedings temporarily, perhaps to discuss a procedural or policy problem or to await the arrival of a certain Senator. In those cases, the clerk calls the roll very slowly and, before the call of the roll is completed, the Senate agrees by unanimous consent to call off the quorum call to "dispense with further proceedings under the quorum call".

Because the absence of a quorum has not actually been demonstrated, the Senate can resume its business. Such quorum calls can be time-consuming and so can serve the interests of filibustering Senators. During a filibuster, however, the clerk may be directed by the leadership to call the roll more rapidly, as if a roll call vote were in progress. Doing so reduces the time the quorum call consumes, but it also creates the real possibility that the quorum call may demonstrate that a quorum in fact is not present.

In that case, the Senate has only two options: to adjourn or to take steps necessary to secure the presence of enough absent Senators to create a quorum. Typically, the majority leader or the majority floor manager opts for the latter course and makes a motion that the Sergeant at Arms secure the attendance of absent Senators, then asks for a roll call vote on that motion. Senators who did not respond to the quorum call are likely to come to the floor for the roll call vote on this motion.

Almost always, therefore, the vote establishes that a quorum is present, so the Senate can resume its business without the Sergeant at Arms actually having to execute the Senate's directive.

This process also can be time-consuming because of the time required to conduct the roll call vote just discussed. Nonetheless, the proponents of the bill or other matter being filibustered may prefer that the roll be called quickly because it requires unanimous consent to call off a routine quorum call, in which the clerk calls the roll very slowly, before it is completed. A filibustering Senator has only to suggest the absence of a quorum and then object to calling off the quorum call in order to provoke a motion to secure the attendance of absentees and with the support of at least 10 other Senators a roll call vote on that motion.

If this motion is likely to be necessary, one way or the other, it is usually in the interests of the bill's proponents to have the motion made and agreed to as soon as possible. When Senators suggest the absence of a quorum, however, they lose the floor. Also, "[i]t is not in order for a Senator to demand a quorum call if no business has intervened since the last call; business must intervene before a second quorum call or between calls if the question is raised or a point of order made.

As the preceding discussion indicates, roll call votes are another source of delay. Any question put to the Senate for its decision requires a vote, and a minimum of 11 Senators can require that it be a roll call vote. Each such vote consumes at least 15 minutes unless the Senate agrees in advance to reduce the time for voting.

The Constitution provides that the "yeas and nays" shall be ordered "at the desire of one-fifth of those present" Article I, Section 5. Because a quorum is presumed to be present, the Senate requires at least 11 Senators one-fifth of the minimal quorum of 51 to request a roll call vote on the pending question. When a Senator wants a roll call vote, other Senators frequently support the request as a courtesy to a colleague. During a filibuster, however, the supporters of the bill or amendment sometimes try to discourage other Senators from supporting requests for time-consuming roll call votes.

Also, the proponents sometimes can make it more difficult for their opponents to secure a roll call vote. When the request for a roll call vote is made immediately after a quorum call or another roll call vote, Senators can insist that the request be supported by one-fifth of however many Senators answered that call or cast their votes. The time allowed for Senators to cast roll call votes is a minimum of 15 minutes, unless the Senate agrees, before the vote begins, to a reduced time.

When the 15 minutes expire, the vote usually is left open for some additional time to accommodate other Senators who are thought to be en route to the floor to vote. Thus, the actual time for a roll call vote can extend to 20 minutes or more.

During filibusters, however, a call for the regular order can lead the presiding officer to announce the result of a roll call vote soon after the 15 minutes allotted for it. The leadership typically attempts to arrange the daily schedule of the Senate so that filibusters are not unduly disruptive or inconvenient to Senators. One way to make conducting a filibuster more costly and difficult is to keep the Senate in session until late at night, or even all night, requiring the participating Senators to speak or otherwise consume the Senate's time.

During some contentious filibusters, cots have even been brought into the Senate's anterooms for Senators to use during around-the-clock sessions. Today, all-night sessions are very unusual. The Senate may not even convene earlier or remain in session later when a filibuster is in progress than it does on other days. One reason may be that filibusters are not the extraordinary and unusual occurrences they once were. Another may be that Senators are less willing to endure the inconvenience and discomfort of prolonged sessions.

Also, leadership may react to a threat of a filibuster by keeping the measure or matter from the floor, at least for a while. The point about longer, later sessions is important because late-night or all-night sessions put as much or more of a burden on the proponents of the question being debated than on its opponents. The Senators participating in the filibuster need only ensure that at least one of their number always is present on the floor to speak.

The proponents of the question, however, need to ensure that a majority of the Senate is present or at least available to respond to a quorum call or roll call vote. If, late in the evening or in the middle of the night, a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum and a quorum does not appear, the Senate must adjourn or at least suspend its proceedings until a quorum is established. This works to the advantage of the filibustering Senators, so the burden rests on their opponents to ensure that the constitutional quorum requirement always can be met.

The procedures for invoking cloture are governed by paragraphs 2 and 3 of Rule XXII which also govern procedure under cloture, as discussed later in this report.

The following discussion mostly addresses procedure stemming from paragraph 2, including reinterpretation of its application to nominations. The process begins when a Senator presents a cloture motion that is signed by 16 Senators, proposing "to bring to a close the debate upon" the pending question. The motion is presented to the Senate while it is in session and must be presented while the question on which cloture is sought is pending.

For example, it is not in order for a Senator to present a motion to invoke cloture on a bill the Senate has not yet agreed to consider or on an amendment that has not yet been offered. A Senator does not need to be recognized by the chair to present a cloture petition. The Senator who has the floor may be interrupted for the purpose but retains the floor thereafter and may continue speaking.

The motion is read to the Senate, but the Senate then returns to whatever business it had been transacting. In almost all cases, the Senate does not act on the cloture motion in any way on the day on which it is submitted or on the following day.