PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Dec 2, 2015
Expresses the sense of the House of Representatives that:
the Standing Rules of the Senate and debate practices should not be abused to debilitate it and indefinitely block debate or a fair, up or down vote on legislative matters;
after the Senate sets a new precedent to restore its workings, it should negotiate and adopt, under its existing rules of a supermajority vote to invoke cloture, a parliamentarian procedure to replace the cloture motion to call up legislation and make it pending, with a "non debatable motion to proceed to consider" that allows for the minority to offer a reasonable number of germane amendments, subject to debate, once the measure is pending for consideration;
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
these proposed number of germane amendments and debate hours and mechanism to truncate debate could be decreased or increased at the time that the rule change is negotiated and adopted, ensuring the appropriate center between sufficient adversarial debate and the prevention of chronic stalemate is both a Senate majority and minority determination; and
nothing in this resolution shall be construed as the House advocating a wholesale abolishment of a Senate filibuster mechanism or supermajority cloture requirement, or calling for the classic standing and talking Senate filibuster to be abolished, but that the House believes it should be reinvigorated.
Encourages the Senate to forbid threats of a filibuster derived from an "anonymous hold," and in its place reinvigorate the "traditional standing filibuster" or "hold the floor" mechanism of dissent, with a time allocation of up to 100 hours and the ability to truncate debate only by a petition of 60 Senators.
People & committees
Rep. Franks, Trent [R-AZ-8] · R–AZ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Rules.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 7, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.Res.545 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.Res.545 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.Res.545 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.Res.545 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.